[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/2] Make a wrapper for fork() - Take 2



On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:22:26AM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> 
> This is an update to / deprecates the patchset I sent last night:
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2010-February/msg00580.html
> 
> I have corrected the problem found by Dan Berrange (neglecting to
> restore the signal mask when fork() fails). Aside from that, and
> corresponding comments in the commit logs, it is unchanged.
> 
> Here's the original intro email:
> 
> This was partly prompted by DV's suggestion last week.
> 
> The first of these patches creates a new function called virFork()
> which behaves (almost) like fork() but takes care of some important
> details that pretty much any call to fork() should be doing. The 2nd
> switches three fork-calling functions in util.c over to using
> virFork() instead of fork().
> 
> In the future, except for odd circumstances, code that needs to fork
> should call virFork() instead, and if there is anything determined to
> be universally necessary at fork-time, it should be added to virFork()
> rather than to the callers of virFork(); hopefully this will ease
> maintenance and reduce replicated bugs.
> 
> (Note that, while this is just an overall "code health" patch, a
> couple bug fix patches I'll be submitting either tomorrow or Thursday
> will assume it as a prerequisite).

  Okay, thanks, the new function looks fine, and the second patch is
the logical next step.

  ACK, applied both !

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel veillard com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]