Just one nit for graph.c
1633 - 1635: Were these changes intentional?
1633 - if (v->gv_start_f == NULL)
1633 + if (v->gv_start_f == NULL) {
1634 1634 vertex_send_event(v, RESTARTER_EVENT_TYPE_START);
1635 - else
1635 + } else
The rest looks good to me.
-tn
On 02/ 1/10 09:04 AM, Sean Wilcox wrote:
> Some testing and review have pointed out another location where the
> STOP_RESET is not being
> handled exactly right. The case of a restart_on='refresh' should also
> use a STOP_RESET. This
> has been added to this fix as well.
>
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~swilcox/6920199_webrev.1/
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~swilcox/6920199_webrev_inc.1/
>
> Simple change -- add the check for refresh at the same point the check
> for restart is being
> done, and send the appropriate STOP event on either case as opposed to
> just the RESTART
> case.
>
>
> Tony Nguyen wrote:
>> Sean,
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>> -tn
>>
>> On 01/27/10 03:38 PM, Sean Wilcox wrote:
>>> This webrev includes the fix for 6919271, which has been reviewed but
>>> I'm hoping to put this fix back with that one.
>>>
>>> In any case this is a simple fix, where inetd was missing an update to
>>> handle the new RESTARTER_EVENT_TYPE_STOP_RESET event that is effectively
>>> a pass-thru to the RESTARTER_EVENT_TYPE_STOP event, but in the bugs case
>>> was handled as an
>>> unknown and therefor not offlining the dependent services therefor not
>>> letting the final service to offline. When the final service was then
>>> onlined it was already onlined and therefor did not transition the
>>> non-inetd controlled services back online that had been offlined via the
>>> disable of rpc/bind.
>>>
>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~swilcox/6920119_webrev.0/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
