On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:22:11 -0500 Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.en...@oracle.com): > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:40:10 -0500 > > Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > > Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.en...@oracle.com): > > > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:48:21 -0500 > > > > Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > lxc-create ... -o - > > > > > > > > > > will send template output to standard output (the old > > > > > default). > > > > > > > > > > lxc-create ... without any -o will hide template output. > > > > > > > > > > lxc-create -o /tmp/xxx will send template output to the file > > > > > /tmp/xxx. > > > > > > > > I like having a -o for lxc-create, but I'm not sure we should > > > > change the > > > > > > Sorry, that was wrong in my commit msg. > > > > > > only '--outfile' works (because 'o' is used by the common options > > > for logfile output) > > > > > > > default of lxc-create to not show the template output. For > > > > interactive > > > > > > We could swap the meanings so that '--outfile -' means on output, > > > and not listing '--outfile' shows the output on stdout. > > > > Sorry, I'm not getting the difference between --outfile - and just > > getting output on stdout? My main concern was that lxc-create > > without any extra args do what it does today (shows output). > > With this current patch: > > lxc-create with no extra args does not show output > "lxc-create --outfile -" shows output to stdout > > I'm suggesting we just flip those. Ahh, yep, I'd like it better flipped then as the no args case won't change today's behavior, but if others feel strongly I don't really care too much. So this is what I think you're proposing: lxc-create with no extra args -> shows output on stdout lxc-create --outfile - -> shows output on stdout lxc-create --outfile /tmp/xxx -> output in /tmp/xxx > > > > use it can be quite useful, whereas I think silent certainly > > > > makes sense for the API (which is what I think Çağlars original > > > > concern was). > > > > > > Oh, hm, yeah. So my approach actually doesn't suffice. I was > > > thinking callers could do the same thing, but that's somewhat > > > silly. > > > > > > > Maybe the API should take fds which we can dup2() onto 0,1,2 of > > > > the forked create process to handle both cases? (and would > > > > allow the API to capture the output if so desired) > > > > > > pass in an int* which is either NULL or contains 3 ints (i.e. > > > -1, 10, 10 if 10 is an output file)? > > > > Yeah I think that would work, or 3 separate ints like we do for > > lxcapi_console(). Either way, if the caller passes -1, does that > > mean we would use the callers existing stdin,out,err i.e. don't > > dup2() that fd > > I was thinking -1 would mean leave that fd alone, but > > > at all, or that we will ensure stdin,out,err are /dev/null? The > > later is probably easier for API callers and lxc-create can just > > pass the fd's it wants. > > Agreed, that seems to make sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
