> I like the idea but haven't looked at the implementation yet as the > patch is really quite large. Quickly scanning through I briefly noticed > that the copyright headers for the new files are wrong (refer to IBM and > Daniel instead of Christian).
I just copy&pasted them from the other files, most header files I saw contained the same copyright. Just tell me what exactly to put there and then I'll do that for the next version of the patch. > I'm also wondering if we shouldn't try to keep the "protocol" a bit more > generic to eventually allow the container to send/receive more than just > its status? If we want to have a back-channel, we'd need a socket, which makes just doing echo RUNNING > /dev/lxc-notify impossible, you'd need a special program for that. Having the template scripts dump an additional script or upstart job or systemd unit file or whatever in the container when creating it seems a lot easier than having to use a special program. On the other hand, it wouldn't be too complicated to have two special files lying around: One for simple status updates using the current text interface (easily scriptable, not much hassle to get basic status notification functionality right) and a socket that supports an extensible (binary?) protocol, which currently also only allows one to change the status. But because it's extensible, the interface would already be there. Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
