Re: svwaitup races with sv

[Earl Chew <earl_chew@agilent.com>]

Charlie Brady wrote:
> I think that would be possible by making the fifo unbuffered, and having 
> sv inject a nop command during 'sv status' (so sv would be blocked until 
> runsv had processed previous commands). But that would change the timing 
> of lots of current programs which call 'sv'.

Hmm ... I just noticted "sv start" which appears to combine "sv up"
and "svwaitup".


In situations where the initiator is willing to block and wait, perhaps
"sv start" is reasonable.

In other situations, the initiator does not want to block, but later on
some dependent wants to ensure that the service is up.

Is "sv start" also applicable in this situation ?

Earl