On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> Hmm. I think that OVS actually solves all of these problems. First,
> the return code of the parent should be correct, in that if the child
> fails to start properly the parent exits with a nonzero exit code.
> Second, observers can ensure
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:26:15PM +0200, Christian Svensson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > This is how OVS works.
> >
>
> Only when specifically launched with --detach. It's not the binary default,
> which I feel is important to note.
>
>
> > What's
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> This is how OVS works.
>
Only when specifically launched with --detach. It's not the binary default,
which I feel is important to note.
> What's the advantage of sd_notify? You say that sd_notify() is
> "recommended". By whom, and wher
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:27:09PM +0200, Christian Svensson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As far as I understand, right now the daemonizing flow for an OVS process
> is:
>
> 1. Process calls daemonize_start to fork into a child if running in
> detached mode
> Parent waits until daemonize_complete is called
>
