It was <2013-06-17 pon 20:51>, when Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 14.06.13 14:33, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:03:00AM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: >>> We are converting some daemons to socket activation. Most of them >>> open unix sockets and manage incoming connections in a main-loop, so >>> the easiest way to convert it is to create Accept=false socket with >>> systemd. >>> >>> Now, it is quite well described how to start such daemon, however, >>> there is little about shutting it down. Should the daemon close(2) >>> the received sockets? Should it unlink(2) them from a filesystem? >> close() yes, unlink() no. > > Strictly speaking you don't even have to do that. The kernel will > clean up left-over fds when your process exits, hence you don't have > to close it explicitly. > > But you certainly should not unlink() the socket in the fs, because > then the socket will not be accessible anymore.
Maybe I've asked the wrong question. I should rather have asked: Can I close? Can I unlink? Because that's what the code does now and we wanted to know which parts are common for standalone and systemd-socket-activated paths. Thanks for the information. PS. I think this information should be somewher in the docs. Do you think the paragraph describing Accept= in the systemd.socket.5 man page is the right place? -- Łukasz Stelmach Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
