On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:51:53PM -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote: > It is more reliable and usually faster to wait for the shell's > notification that background tasks have exited than it is to assume > they have exited after three seconds have passed. Yes, a wait should normally do the trick here. What happens if thaw fails and the task to wait for is still frozen? We'd need a "wait or timeout" here to gracefully handle that. However, I suppose it's arguable whether thaw failing is worth worrying about here... Cheers, -Matt Helsley > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <ntl@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > process-tree/run-ptree1.sh | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/process-tree/run-ptree1.sh b/process-tree/run-ptree1.sh > index d0cefff..ed7ce9e 100755 > --- a/process-tree/run-ptree1.sh > +++ b/process-tree/run-ptree1.sh > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ while [ $cnt -lt 15 ]; do > > thaw > > - sleep 3 > + wait > > restore_fs_snapshot > > -- > 1.6.0.6 > > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
