From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1972 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Earl Chew Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: sv sometimes won't issue down request (specifically, after 'sv once xxx') Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:38:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4A6A1BCF.9070202@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> 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 1248467952 4897 80.91.229.12 (24 Jul 2009 20:39:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org To: Charlie Brady Original-X-From: supervision-return-2207-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Fri Jul 24 22:39:04 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 1MURXY-0003nx-CW for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:38:52 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 1258 invoked by uid 76); 24 Jul 2009 20:40:09 -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 1250 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2009 20:40:09 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2009 20:38:41.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[BAE8B760:01CA0C9E] X-Scanned-By: MPP/Clamd http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: MPP invoked on aglcosbs05 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1972 Archived-At: Charlie Brady wrote: > Yes it does seem buggy optimisation. > > Note that if you simply removed that check, you would change not only > the 'once' behaviour of sv/runsv, but also the behaviour when multiple > 'sv d xxx' calls are made on a running service. If the optimisation is > not re-implemented in runsv, then there will be multiple signals and/or > custom control scripts run where previously there was only one. Are you saying it is prudent to move the optimisation in runsv itself? Earl