Re: [Nbd] The purpose of dontfork in handle_connection()?
- To: nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] The purpose of dontfork in handle_connection()?
- From: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:28:41 +0100
- Message-id: <51416E19.4000901@...112...>
- In-reply-to: <20130313182754.GA21849@...1259...>
- References: <20130311193533.GB1350@...1259...> <20130312075754.GA29217@...3...> <20130313182754.GA21849@...1259...>
On 13-03-13 19:27, Tuomas Räsänen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 08:57:54AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>
>> The debugging output currently doesn't distinguish between client
>> sessions (it probably should), which means that if we fork with
>> debugging output, it's pretty difficult to make sense of the output.
>>
>> It's probably a good idea to change that, yes.
>>
>
> Ah I see, I might try to fix that too then.
>
> What do you think about DEBUG(), could we just use msg(LOG_DEBUG, ...)
> instead?
>
> And what about fprintf(stderr, ..), replace them all with
> msg(LOG_DEBUG, ...), right?
>
> It would be cleaner if there was only one way to log messages, namely
> msg(). Then it would be just a matter of the configuration where the
> output would finally land, syslog or stderr.
Yes, that sounds like a sensible thing to do.
>>> ( If someone wonders why I stumbled across this one: I'll try to move
>>> the whole negotiation procedure to the child process, and cleanup the
>>> server code alongside. )
>>
>> I've long longed for a set of fresh eyes over the code, much like you're
>> doing now. Cleaning up your own code is something that's surprisingly
>> difficult if you have to do it all by yourself. In that light, your
>> efforts are much appreciated. Thanks!
>
> No problem, I personally love fixing things, also on my freetime.
>
> And my employer, Opinsys, is highly devoted to free software and
> giving back to community. We are running LTSP-systems and NBD plays a
> central role there.
>
> Luckily, free software and its communities make this kind of things
> possible.
>
> Thank you for doing good job as the maintainer. You are really quick
> at reviewing patches, accepting good ones and perhaps most importantly
> giving feedback on ones which look suspicious. Thanks!
I'm just glad we have such a productive situation :-)
--
Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy
requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once,
add a voucher, and save on postage.
Reply to: