Re: [Babel-users] [PATCH] Add option to consider sysctl write failures as non-fatal.

Hello! +1 for this patch. We are also running babeld in a Docker container and this requires us to run it as a privileged container due to some Docker deficiencies in setting network sysctls inside containers. Jernej On 10. 08. 2015 18:02, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Babeld will exit with a

Re: [Babel-users] [PATCH] Add option to consider sysctl write failures as non-fatal.

Well, it would be better if babel checked to see if the (sometimes read-only) sysctl value was already correct, instead of blithely trying to write it. On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Jernej Kos jer...@kos.mx wrote: Hello! +1 for this patch. We are also running babeld in a Docker container

[Babel-users] [PATCH] Add option to consider sysctl write failures as non-fatal.

Babeld will exit with a fatal error if it is unable to write sysctls. When running in a container, however, /proc/sys may be mounted read-only, which causes babeld to fail. This adds a switch to consider sysctl failures as non-fatal, in which case a warning will be issues rather than having the

Re: [Babel-users] [PATCH] Add option to consider sysctl write failures as non-fatal.

Well, it would be better if babel checked to see if the (sometimes read-only) sysctl value was already correct, instead of blithely trying to write it. Agreed. Toke, wouldn't it be better instead of your patch: 1. to follow Dave's suggestion by default; 2. to add a new config file

Re: [Babel-users] [PATCH] Add option to consider sysctl write failures as non-fatal.

Toke, wouldn't it be better instead of your patch: 1. to follow Dave's suggestion by default; 2. to add a new config file option that doesn't set any sysctls unconditionally? I'm also dubious about the command-line option -- shouldn't this be just a config file directive, which