Hi Serge, On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:09:31AM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Tycho Andersen (tycho.ander...@canonical.com): > > Hi Stéphane, > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 05:19:14PM -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:31:05PM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > > > Hi Stéphane, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:34:55AM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good, I will make the changes. > > > > > > > > Below is a revised version of the patch. > > > > > > Some more comments below. > > > > Here is an updated version with the comments addressed. > > Thanks, Tycho. I love how little was really needed in order > to make the monitor work. A few question/comments below, sorry. > But after that I think I'm done.
Indeed! > > +[ "network-unlock" = "$CRTOOLS_SCRIPT_ACTION" ] || > > +[ "network-lock" = "$CRTOOLS_SCRIPT_ACTION" ] || exit 0 > > What exactly is your intent with the two lines above? CRIU has a number of callbacks (not just network-unlock or network-lock) that it invokes by setting CRTOOLS_SCRIPT_ACTION appropriately and then invoking the script. This is basically just to stop the script if the action isn't one of these two. Since we do a test below, we could get rid of this condition if we wanted, it just seems nicer this way. Let me know what to do about the above, and I will make the rest of the changes you suggested and repost. Tycho _______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
