Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xl: track child processes for the benefit of libxl

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH] xl: track child processes for the benefit of 
libxl"):
> On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 11:56 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >   pid_t xl_waitpid(enum xlchildnum, ....);
>
> > Pick one; they all seem plausible to me.
> 
> Likewise. Not that keen on the union one but the others are all broadly
> similar.

OK.

> > My favourite is probably the one where we pass the array index to
> > xl_fork and xl_waitpid.
> 
> You mean the one I haven't trimmed above? I think I'd be happy with
> that.

OK.

> > > > -    *pid = fork();
> > > > -    if (*pid < 0) {
> > > > +    console_child_report();
> > > > +
> > > > +    pid_t pid = xl_fork(&child_console);
> > > 
> > > console_child_report doesn't seem to reset child_config.pid and xlfork
> > > has an assert(!foo.pid) in it, so how does this work on the second time?
> > 
> > xl_waitpid does it.  Perhaps this is worth a comment ?
> 
> Yes, since you rely on BSS zeroing and waitpid (i.e. teardown) to
> (re)initialise the state I think a comment would be handy.

OK.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel