On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:23:52 -0500 Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.en...@oracle.com): > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:01:36 -0500 > > Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > > As an alternative to doing pidfiles, how about following the way > > > that lxcapi_create does it with fcntl(fd, F_SETLKW? (see > > > create_partial() and ongoing_create()? > > > > > > Then if the monitor exited without being able to clean up, we can > > > detect it and clean up. > > > > Hey Serge, thats a good idea. I think F_SETLKW could be used > > instead if we're worried about the kill(pid, 0) and pid reuse. Is > > that the case you're worried about? > > And I just don't want all that pidfile code in there if we don't > need it. Is there any advantage to using a pidfile? Nope, I agree I don't think there is an advantage to a pidfile. I'll post a patch over on devel with the SETLK approach. _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list lxc-users@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
