From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1971 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Earl Chew Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: svwaitup races with sv Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:35:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4A6A1B04.2030800@agilent.com> References: <8F9355C5-C168-4AD7-8B6C-502416E7EECC@zoy.org> <94175859-2733-4ACF-85E9-DD5FF627F23B@zoy.org> <17A739BC-94BA-4611-A523-6978934F0D61@zoy.org> <4A633321.1060207@agilent.com> <4A635477.6030503@agilent.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248467748 4303 80.91.229.12 (24 Jul 2009 20:35:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:35:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org To: Charlie Brady Original-X-From: supervision-return-2206-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Fri Jul 24 22:35:41 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MURUJ-0002EP-J5 for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:35:31 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 378 invoked by uid 76); 24 Jul 2009 20:36:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 370 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2009 20:36:48 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2009 20:35:18.0221 (UTC) FILETIME=[41D33FD0:01CA0C9E] X-Scanned-By: MPP/Clamd http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: MPP invoked on aglcosbs03 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1971 Archived-At: 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