Re: [PATCH 2/2] ulogd: Implement PID file writing

[Chris Boot <bootc@bootc.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --]

On 12/05/2013 10:47, Eric Leblond wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 11:34 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso a écrit :
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:11:51AM +0100, Chris Boot wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2013 01:48, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>>>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 09:27:31PM +0100, Chris Boot wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Hi Pablo,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd argue exactly the opposite point: that when you want multiple
>>>>> instances a PID file can help you work out which is which.
>>>> That new option may break existing setups with multiple instances.
>>>
>>> My patch explicitly doesn't change the behaviour of existing
>>> configurations. If you don't pass '--pidfile /path/to/file.pid', no pid
>>> file is written and there is no change in how ulogd works.
>>
>> Existing setups having already two ulogd2 instances will break, as
>> they won't be passing --pidfile, thus clashing on the same default pid
>> file. One of the instances will not proceed. They will have to add
>> --pidfile to their scripts to get things back working.
> 
> If I read the patch correctly, the pidfile is not created if the option
> is not given:

[snip]

> But, as pointed out by Pablo's reading of the code, testing if we need
> to write the file only inside of write_pidfile() is a bit confusing
> something like:
> 
>   if (ulogd_pidfile) write_pidfile(); // add error handling here
> 
> would be better.

Yes, that makes sense, I'll change that and resubmit the patch.

Chris

-- 
Chris Boot
bootc@bootc.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 899 bytes --]