On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:38:14AM +0100, Chris Boot wrote: > On 12/05/2013 10:34, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > 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. > > There is no default pidfile. No --pidfile option: no pidfile is created. > No change in behaviour. > > You only get the new behaviour if you explicitly add --pidfile to the > arguments. You're right, I overlooked that. > > But anyway, I suggest that that the standalone debian installation > > sticks to one single instance at the same time, that's just fine for > > most people. > > The init script is indeed sticking to just one instance as-shipped. Assuming that, you'll have one single instance and pidof would be just fine. But I leave final decision to Eric. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
