Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 19:33:14 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Process reapers Message-ID: <547EF4FA.60305@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20141203104616.GQ97072@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20141201185237.GC97072@kib.kiev.ua> <2BBA8329-C8F4-452D-B6C2-E129FCD6D666@me.com> <20141202093109.GG97072@kib.kiev.ua> <08032C01-B594-478D-927E-D7E52920ABEE@me.com> <20141203104616.GQ97072@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/3/14, 6:46 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:46:27AM -0800, Rui Paulo wrote: >> On Dec 2, 2014, at 01:31, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I could rename p1 to something else, but also short, since LIST_* >>> constructs are long and clumsy. Might be, s/p1/rp/ ? >> Yes, that works as well. > Ok, I renamed p1 to reap. > > Does anybody have any non-formal comments about patch ? > I would go as far as to say that the implementation details are > really not that critical for the proposal. I am much more worried > about the API design and its usefullness, A really easy way to tell you're rdealing with "init" from debuggers/dtrace/etc I have dtrace scripts that follow the parent process chain until they get to pid 1. in this case I'd probbaly want them to stop at the jail init (not 1).. Also, should a jail init have immunity from signals from within the jail like init does? > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?547EF4FA.60305>