On 12/05/2013 10:47, Eric Leblond wrote: > Hi, > > Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 11:34 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso a écrit : >> Hi Chris, >> >> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 09:11:51AM +0100, Chris Boot wrote: >>> On 12/05/2013 01:48, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >>>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 09:27:31PM +0100, Chris Boot wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> Hi Pablo, >>>>> >>>>> I'd argue exactly the opposite point: that when you want multiple >>>>> instances a PID file can help you work out which is which. >>>> That new option may break existing setups with multiple instances. >>> >>> My patch explicitly doesn't change the behaviour of existing >>> configurations. If you don't pass '--pidfile /path/to/file.pid', no pid >>> file is written and there is no change in how ulogd works. >> >> Existing setups having already two ulogd2 instances will break, as >> they won't be passing --pidfile, thus clashing on the same default pid >> file. One of the instances will not proceed. They will have to add >> --pidfile to their scripts to get things back working. > > If I read the patch correctly, the pidfile is not created if the option > is not given: [snip] > But, as pointed out by Pablo's reading of the code, testing if we need > to write the file only inside of write_pidfile() is a bit confusing > something like: > > if (ulogd_pidfile) write_pidfile(); // add error handling here > > would be better. Yes, that makes sense, I'll change that and resubmit the patch. Chris -- Chris Boot bootc@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
