On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> In this case we want more than simple change notification: we want fully
> recursive notifications, and I believe that netlink is by far the most
> useful interface for this.
>
The main objection I usually have to netlink is that it'
On Thu, 12.08.10 12:21, Paul Menage ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> >
> > ok, so is there some way one can extend this functionality at a per
> > cgroup level?
>
> No reason why not, if you really wanted to. If you were going to put
> work
On Thu, 12.08.10 12:01, Paul Menage ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > agents for that, and simply forward this to the D-Bus system bus, but my
> > stomach revolts every time I get reminded that each time a service exits
> > we spawn
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
>
> ok, so is there some way one can extend this functionality at a per
> cgroup level?
No reason why not, if you really wanted to. If you were going to put
work into this though, it might be better to spend it on a
netlink-like solution as le
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>> agents for that, and simply forward this to the D-Bus system bus, but my
>> stomach revolts every time I get reminded that each time a service exits
>> we spawn a little agent pr
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> agents for that, and simply forward this to the D-Bus system bus, but my
> stomach revolts every time I get reminded that each time a service exits
> we spawn a little agent process just for that.
>
Agreed. I don't like release_agent m
On Wed, 11.08.10 18:02, Paul Menage ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the release agent logic is ugly anyway. It would be much nicer if
> > cgroups would just send the release msgs via netlink, so that more than
> > just one
Hello,
Il 12/08/2010 03:02, Paul Menage ha scritto:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>
>> Well, the release agent logic is ugly anyway. It would be much nicer if
>> cgroups would just send the release msgs via netlink, so that more than
>> just one application ca
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> Well, the release agent logic is ugly anyway. It would be much nicer if
> cgroups would just send the release msgs via netlink, so that more than
> just one application can be notified and we don't have to spawn
> processes all the time
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 06.08.10 02:58, Tommaso Cucinotta ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> does anyone know whether it is possible to define a custom
>> per-(cgroup-)directory release_agent file ?
>> The notify_on_release seems cust
On Fri, 06.08.10 02:58, Tommaso Cucinotta ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> does anyone know whether it is possible to define a custom
> per-(cgroup-)directory release_agent file ?
> The notify_on_release seems customisable on a per-directory basis, so
> why the release_agent wou
* Tommaso Cucinotta [2010-08-06 02:58:35]:
> Hello,
>
> does anyone know whether it is possible to define a custom
> per-(cgroup-)directory release_agent file ?
> The notify_on_release seems customisable on a per-directory basis, so
> why the release_agent would not ?
Yes, the release_agent i
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Tommaso Cucinotta
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> does anyone know whether it is possible to define a custom
> per-(cgroup-)directory release_agent file ?
> The notify_on_release seems customisable on a per-directory basis, so
> why the release_agent would not ?
>
No, as of no
Hello,
does anyone know whether it is possible to define a custom
per-(cgroup-)directory release_agent file ?
The notify_on_release seems customisable on a per-directory basis, so
why the release_agent would not ?
Thanks,
T.
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
