Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "nbd_set_foo".
2019 Jul 25
2
[PATCH libnbd] lib: Kill subprocess in nbd_close.
This is a simple patch which stops nbd_close from waiting too long for
a server subprocess to shut down.
I wanted to send SIGHUP because the server will be able to catch it
and do a clean shutdown if that is required. Is another signal
better?
Is it right to send a signal here?
Rich.
2019 Jul 25
1
Re: [PATCH libnbd] lib: Kill subprocess in nbd_close.
...d, SIGHUP);
I don't know if SIGTERM is any better, but think SIGHUP is okay for now.
Also, I don't know if we want to put a time limit on waiting for the
server, and follow up with an even harder SIGKILL if it hasn't
gracefully exited. Maybe it should be a knob where the user can call
nbd_set_FOO to tune the knob for their desired cleanup behavior (whether
for which signal to send, or whether to follow up with SIGKILL, or even
how long to wait)? Or are we just reinventing timeout(1) from
coreutils? So for now this seems okay.
> waitpid (h->pid, NULL, 0);
> + }
--
Eric Bl...