Lennart Poettering píše v Pá 03. 08. 2012 v 20:46 +0200:
> On Tue, 24.07.12 16:43, Lukas Nykryn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > In some cases, like wrong configuration, restarting after error
> > exit code does not help, so administrator can specify RestartIgnoreCodes
> > which will not cause restart of a service.
>
> I am not happy with the term "Code" here, it's a bit too generic to be
> self explanatory.
>
> And I think I agree with Zbigniew to a certain degree: we might want to
> think about whether we should also allow configuring non-failure exit
> codes or so. I mean, I am not suggesting we should implement that
> right-away, but just keep in mind how that setting would look like so
> that we can keep things uniform if we add it later. (In fact, I'd
> recommend not to implement it right away: adding an option nobody so far
> needed seems like a bad idea if we want to keep our set of options
> minimal).
>
> Also, I think we need to think further than just exit codes,
> i.e. signals and stuff.
>
> Maybe DontRestartExitStatus=? The libc calls the generalization of
> exit code and exit signal the "exit status", so that sounds like the
> best term to use here.
>
> And then people could write:
>
> DontRestartExitStatus=SIGTERM 1 2 3 4
>
> or something like this?
>
> (Of course, the "don't" in the name is a negative option, which we try
> to avoid, but it appears weird to have a positive option for this, so i
> think it would be ok...)
>
> One day, if we really need to make the failure/success sets configurable
> too, we could then add:
>
> DontFailExitStatus=SIGSEGV 1 2
>
> (But please, don't implement this bit just yet, let's wait for somebody
> actually needing this. Note though, that Upstart actually does have
> functionality like this).
>
> > + *ignored = new(int, k);
>
> Maybe use a bitfield here, like we do for the syscalls list?
>
> (Actualy two bitfields, one for the exit codes, one for the exit signals).
>
> > +static int check_ignored_rc(Service *s){
>
> Please don't use acronyms in symbols if it's easy to avoid them and no
> strong incentive to use them.
>
> > + int n_restart_ignored_codes;
>
> Generally we try to used "unsigned" rather than "int" for values where
> negative values really never make sense, like in this case. It gives
> readers a bit of a hint that this field never can be negative and no
> special cases like that are used.
>
> Otherwise looks good.
>
> Lennart
>
Thanks for the feedback. I have altered name of the option to
RestartIgnoreExitStatus, but feel free to change to anything else and I
have also stored the codes to a set instead of an array.
Lukas
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
