Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com): > On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 20:30 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com): > > > On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 23:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25.10.12 11:59, Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com) wrote: > > > > > > > > I've got some more problems relating to shutting down containers, some > > > > > of which may be related to mounting tmpfs on /run to which /var/run is > > > > > symlinked to. We're doing halt / restart detection by monitoring utmp > > > > > in that directory but it looks like utmp isn't even in that directory > > > > > anymore and mounting tmpfs on it was always problematical. We may > > > > > have > > > > > to have a more generic method to detect when a container has shut down > > > > > or is restarting in that case. > > > > > > > I can't parse this. The system call reboot() is virtualized for > > > > containers just fine and the container managaer (i.e. LXC) can check for > > > > that easily. > > > > > > The problem we have had was with differentiating between reboot and halt > > > to either shut the container down cold or restarted it. You say > > > "easily" and yet we never came up with an "easy" solution and monitored > > > utmp instead for the next runlevel change. What is your "easy" solution > > > for that problem? > > > I think you're on older kernels, where we had to resort to that. Pretty > > recently Daniel Lezcano's patch was finally accepted upstream, which lets > > a container call reboot() and lets the parent of init tell whether it > > called reboot or shutdown by looking at wTERMSIG(status). > > Now THAT is wonderful news! I hadn't realized that had been accepted. > So we no longer need to rely on the old utmp kludge?
Yup :) It was very liberating, in terms of what containers can do with mounting. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel