On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:54:57AM +0100, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 07:59:38PM -0400, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > At Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:31:13 +0100,
> > Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 12:09:56PM -0400, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > > > This is accomplished by hav
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 07:59:38PM -0400, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> At Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:31:13 +0100,
> Djalal Harouni wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 12:09:56PM -0400, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > > This is accomplished by having wait_for_container() return a positive
> > > error
> > > code when we
At Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:31:13 +0100,
Djalal Harouni wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 12:09:56PM -0400, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> > This is accomplished by having wait_for_container() return a positive error
> > code when we would like that error code to make its way to the user. This
> > is at odds wi
Hi,
You are right, commit 113cea8 introduced this regression, we guarantee
that nspawn returns the exit code of the program executed in the
container in case nspwan wont fail. My bad, I missed this point...
sorry!
Ok will comment on this patch, the other one is wrong, since we mix
-errno with exi
This is accomplished by having wait_for_container() return a positive error
code when we would like that error code to make its way to the user. This
is at odds with the CODING_STYLE rule that error codes should be returned
as negative values.
---
src/nspawn/nspawn.c | 21 +
1
This is accomplished by having the return value of wait_for_container be
interpreted as a negative version of the exit status code.
---
src/nspawn/nspawn.c | 12 +---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/nspawn/nspawn.c b/src/nspawn/nspawn.c
index 0a8dc0c..0c89
