On Dec 6, 2007 12:51 AM, Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:30:56AM -0800, Ryan Castellucci wrote: > > Slight change to the patch so it'll apply after the SimpleTCP patches > > > > On Dec 3, 2007 8:57 PM, Ryan Castellucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's an updated version of the patch I made before, but now just > > > makes the forking mode a config option. It's also against the hg dev > > > branch. > > Hi, > > your patch seems to have wraped newlines (minor problem) > and turned tabs into spaces (bug problem, especially in hunk 8). > Is it possuble for you to produce/send a clean version of the patch? > Perhaps sending the patch as an attachemnt would help?
I'm probably due to pasting into gmail. Attachments don't work on this list, but I can stick the patch on my web server. > > Also, would it be possible for you to provide a sign-off line > as per section 5 of http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html > Its basically to say that this is your work and you have > the rights to submit it to a GPL code base. Yeah. > Lastly, I've only partially reviewed the code. > But I wonder if it would be best for ldirectord to die > if fork fails? It seems that if that occurs something > pretty nasty is likely to be occuring, so there > might not be much point soldiering on. What do you think? A failing fork might be only a temporary problem, and I don't think dieing is going to help the matter. The code retries if it fails. Here's a clean patch: http://ryanc.org/patches/ldirectord_forking001.patch Signed-off-by: Ryan Castellucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ryan Castellucci http://ryanc.org/ _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
