Twas brillig at 10:38:05 08.04.2010 UTC+02 when dlezc...@fr.ibm.com did
gyre and gimble:
DL> Yep, I did a quick hack in sys_reboot sending a SIGPWR to the
DL> parent of the pid namespace when this one is not the init_pid_ns,
DL> but I didn't had time to propose/send an acceptable version and
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 08.04.2010 11:56, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> []
>> The problem. The current detection is based on the
>> content of container's /var/run/utmp. This is goood
>> provided the container actually touches that file,
>> but this is not true for "single-application"
>> containers, i
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> I come across a series of patches to implement
> reboot/halt of a container. Patches were discussed
> before, but I had no time to look at that stuff in
> more detail...
> The problem. The current detection is based on the
> content of container's /var/run/utmp. This i
08.04.2010 11:56, Michael Tokarev wrote:
[]
> The problem. The current detection is based on the
> content of container's /var/run/utmp. This is goood
> provided the container actually touches that file,
> but this is not true for "single-application"
> containers, i.e. the ones without full init.d
I come across a series of patches to implement
reboot/halt of a container. Patches were discussed
before, but I had no time to look at that stuff in
more detail...
The problem. The current detection is based on the
content of container's /var/run/utmp. This is goood
provided the container actua
