Quoting Qiang Huang (h.huangqi...@huawei.com):
> When start container with daemon model, we'll have a new daemon
> process in lxcapi_start, whose c->numthreads is 2, inherited
> from his father. Even his father return to main(), the
> lxc_container_put won't affect son's numthreads.
The memlock is only between threads. But the child is fork()ed, so the
lxc_container_put() of one won't affect the other task.
Now maybe wait_on_daemonized_start() should be doing an
lxc_container_put()?
> So when daemon stops, he should return to main and do
> lxc_container_put again, rather than exit and leave the
> container alone.
I disagree. This means two separate processes will continue at the
point where lxcapi_start() was called. That sounds like a recipe for
disaster.
> Signed-off-by: Qiang Huang <h.huangqi...@huawei.com>
I'm basically out this week and may not be thinking about it rightly,
but I'm going to say
Nacked-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com>
in the hopes that someone with enough time will reconsider.
> ---
> src/lxc/lxccontainer.c | 8 +++-----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/lxc/lxccontainer.c b/src/lxc/lxccontainer.c
> index 0bebdff..ddea0d7 100644
> --- a/src/lxc/lxccontainer.c
> +++ b/src/lxc/lxccontainer.c
> @@ -632,12 +632,10 @@ reboot:
> goto reboot;
> }
>
> - if (daemonize) {
> + if (daemonize)
> lxc_container_put(c);
> - exit (ret == 0 ? true : false);
> - } else {
> - return (ret == 0 ? true : false);
> - }
> +
> + return (ret == 0 ? true : false);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 1.8.3
>
_______________________________________________
lxc-devel mailing list
lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org
http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
