Re: [lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/5] start child in its own process group, and put it into the foreground

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 09:56:58PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Matt Helsley writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 07:56:03PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > > > >> Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner > >> --- > >> src/lxc/start.c | 17 + > >> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 dele

Re: [lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/5] start child in its own process group, and put it into the foreground

Matt Helsley writes: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 07:56:03PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner >> --- >> src/lxc/start.c | 17 + >> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/lxc/start.c b/src/lxc/start.c >> index b69ac88

Re: [lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/5] start child in its own process group, and put it into the foreground

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 07:56:03PM +0200, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner > --- > src/lxc/start.c | 17 + > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/lxc/start.c b/src/lxc/start.c > index b69ac88..7bbcf5a 100644 > --- a/src/lxc/s

[lxc-devel] [PATCH 5/5] document rootfs options

Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner --- doc/lxc.conf.sgml.in | 39 +++ 1 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/lxc.conf.sgml.in b/doc/lxc.conf.sgml.in index 1305849..6c98714 100644 --- a/doc/lxc.conf.sgml.in +++ b/doc/lxc.conf.sgml.in @@

[lxc-devel] [PATCH 2/5] lxc-start isn't in the foreground anymore, so TTY signals don't reach it

Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner --- src/lxc/start.c |9 - src/lxc/utils.h | 29 ++--- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/lxc/start.c b/src/lxc/start.c index 7bbcf5a..ccd8bcd 100644 --- a/src/lxc/start.c +++ b/src/lxc/start.c @@ -

[lxc-devel] [PATCH 4/5] generalize the name of the signal handler

Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner --- src/lxc/start.c | 10 +- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/lxc/start.c b/src/lxc/start.c index 8a3e4c4..eac2f85 100644 --- a/src/lxc/start.c +++ b/src/lxc/start.c @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ int lxc_check_inherited(int fd_to_igno

[lxc-devel] [PATCH 3/5] forward signals to the container init

Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner --- src/lxc/start.c | 22 ++ 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/lxc/start.c b/src/lxc/start.c index ccd8bcd..8a3e4c4 100644 --- a/src/lxc/start.c +++ b/src/lxc/start.c @@ -192,13 +192,13 @@ static int setup_sigchl

[lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/5] start child in its own process group, and put it into the foreground

Signed-off-by: Ferenc Wagner --- src/lxc/start.c | 17 + 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/lxc/start.c b/src/lxc/start.c index b69ac88..7bbcf5a 100644 --- a/src/lxc/start.c +++ b/src/lxc/start.c @@ -463,6 +463,7 @@ int lxc_spawn(struct lxc_handl

[lxc-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Signal stuff v2 and some documentation

Hi, here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected and some unrelated documentation added. It actually survived some targeted testing in the past days and seems to behave as expected, ie. # lxc-start -n s -- sh -c "trap 'echo TERM' TERM; sleep 10" can be interrupted by

Re: [lxc-devel] [RFC][PATCH][lxc]: unfreeze while stopping

Michel Normand [norm...@fr.ibm.com] wrote: | Le mardi 08 juin 2010 à 19:07 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu a écrit : | > I am not too sure, but if user wants to stop a container is there a | > reason not to implicitly unfreeze the container and stop ? | > | > --- | > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu | > Date

Re: [lxc-devel] [RFC][PATCH][lxc]: unfreeze while stopping

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 07:07:04PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > I am not too sure, but if user wants to stop a container is there a > reason not to implicitly unfreeze the container and stop ? > > --- > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu > Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:42:00 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/1]

Re: [lxc-devel] [RFC][PATCH][lxc]: unfreeze while stopping

Le mardi 08 juin 2010 à 19:07 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu a écrit : > I am not too sure, but if user wants to stop a container is there a > reason not to implicitly unfreeze the container and stop ? > > --- > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu > Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:42:00 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 1/1]:

Re: [lxc-devel] lxc_spawn() in lxc_restart()

On 06/09/2010 07:29 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Hi, > > The following commit for restart-framework adds a call to lxc_spawn() > in lxc_restart(). lxc_spawn() creates a container and in the child > calls the restart plugin (which maps to app_restart() from USERCR) > > commit 196f1d54cef61