>-----Original Message----- >From: Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday 12 October 2021 16:41 >To: Power, Ciara <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected]; David Marchand <[email protected]>; >Burakov, Anatoly <[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor ><[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] telemetry: use unique socket paths for in- >memory mode > >On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 04:37:07PM +0100, Power, Ciara wrote: >> Hi Bruce, >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]> >> >Sent: Friday 8 October 2021 18:19 >> >To: [email protected] >> >Cc: Power, Ciara <[email protected]>; David Marchand >> ><[email protected]>; Burakov, Anatoly >> ><[email protected]>; Kevin Traynor <[email protected]>; >> >Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]> >> >Subject: [PATCH v7 3/5] telemetry: use unique socket paths for >> >in-memory mode >> > >> >When running in in-memory mode, multiple processes can use the same >> >runtime dir, leading to conflicts with the telemetry sockets in that >directory. >> >We can resolve this by appending a suffix to each socket beyond the >> >first, with the suffix being an increasing counter value. >> >Each process uses the first unused socket counter value. >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]> >> >--- >> <snip> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acked-by: Ciara Power <[email protected]> > >Thanks. > >I'm actually in two minds as to whether to this patch should be merged with >the previous one. It was already reviewed and acked as a bugfix, but this >patch also affects a lot of the same areas of code. What do you think? > >/Bruce
Yes, I was actually wondering about that myself. I think it would make more sense to merge them, rather than adding some code in patch 2 that then gets removed in patch 3. Thanks, Ciara
