On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:05:03PM +0200, Christian Svensson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > OK, let's add that then. > > While it's an alternative, I feel like going down that path is hasty and > for my use case I will probably just patch our local fork of OpenvSwitch. > > Why so hostile towards this change? Is there a better forum I can explain > why I believe this problem should be reconsidered?
Including the PID allows multiple daemons of a single type to run. I also don't think you're solving a real problem, because reading a pidfile isn't difficult. > Is there really anyone that can justify the way socket paths are created > should contain the PID? You clearly saw the problem with it in the Windows > code base, but yet pushed on to keep it in the Linux one. I simply do not > see why you're not taking this patch as a way to encourage people to > migrate towards a saner default, and somewhere down the line maybe even > switch the default behavior. I think that Windows doesn't support getpid(). MSDN documents it that way, at least. That is probably why we omit it on Windows, though I do not know for sure. Guru, is that the reason? I don't understand why you want to change this so badly. It's not hard to read a pidfile. I definitely don't want to fork OVS behavior here based on a configuration flag, as I already explained. Basically: I see little benefit to your change, and some drawbacks. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
