Re: s6, listen(8), etc.

2016-09-01 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
I think we might be approaching diminishing returns on this thread, so please don't take offense if i don't reply too much beyond this. I do appreciate your taking the time to document your thought process here, though. thanks! A couple minor comments: On Thu 2016-09-01 08:34:18 -0400, Laurent

Re: s6, listen(8), etc.

2016-09-01 Thread Jan Bramkamp
On 01/09/16 15:43, Roger Pate wrote: On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote: OK, now let's have a look at LISTEN_FDS. I also find these particular implementation details a poor choice. I was going to recommend a different environment convention,

Re: runit kill runsv

2016-09-01 Thread Joan Picanyol i Puig
[sorry for replying late, catching up] * Laurent Bercot [20160627 18:05]: > On 27/06/2016 14:02, Joan Picanyol i Puig wrote: > >However, couldn't they know whether their child did not cease to run > >because > >of a signal they sent? > > I'm not sure about runsv,

Re: s6, listen(8), etc.

2016-09-01 Thread Roger Pate
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote: > OK, now let's have a look at LISTEN_FDS. I also find these particular implementation details a poor choice. I was going to recommend a different environment convention, but then I saw the pre-existing

Re: s6, listen(8), etc.

2016-09-01 Thread Laurent Bercot
On 01/09/2016 07:52, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: I think you might have misunderstood the description of the convention, actually. There's no unix domain socket for receiving the descriptors at all. Rather, the descriptors are already open and present in the process. OK, after reading your

Re: [PATCH 1/3] correct typo

2016-09-01 Thread Gerrit Pape
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 01:15:20PM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote: > >I will be happy to send a 0/n introductory message (git send-email > >--compose) for any future proposed series, i was not aware that was the > >custom here. Indeed, i wrote this series because i could find no clear >