On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:56 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote: > 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... I think it's not, unless this scenario could occur in the absence of kernel or testcase bugs? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
