Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add hooks order explanation in runtime.md - #156
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can probably leave these blank-line insertions out ;).
wking
commented
Sep 8, 2015
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 06:44:53PM -0700, 梁辰晔 (Liang Chenye) wrote:
I left a few minor comments for cleaning up and signing-off on this |
Add an explicit explanation of the hooks order. Signed-off-by: Liang Chenye <liangchenye@huawei.com>
wking
commented
Sep 8, 2015
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 12:20:31AM -0700, 梁辰晔 (Liang Chenye) wrote:
Why close this? |
liangchenye
commented
Sep 9, 2015
I opened a new one to make patch clearer to maintainers. |
wking
commented
Sep 9, 2015
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:52:40PM -0700, 梁辰晔 (Liang Chenye) wrote:
There's no need to open a new pull request. If you fix the commit |
Extend [1,2,3] to avoid: hook 1: spawn ---------------> reaped hook 2: spawn ----------------> reaped hook 3: spawn -----> reaped and explicitly require: hook 1: spawn --> reaped hook 2: spawn --> reaped hook 3: spawn --> reaped Folks who do want parallel execution are free to use a parallelizing wrapper: hook 1: spawn ---------------------------> reaped child 1 -----> reaped child 2 ---------> reaped child 3 ---> reaped Although that cuts both ways (with parallel hooks, folks could always use a single hook with a serializing wrapper). Still, I'd guess most current implementations are already taking the serialized approach, so it makes bundle-author life easier if we are explicit about that. [1]: opencontainers#20 (comment) [2]: opencontainers#156 [3]: opencontainers#157 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
I added a comment in:
#20
Since one hook may rely on another(s) in the hooks list,
add an explicit explanation will be helpful.
It will also be necessary if we convert the hooks to/from one prestart/poststop script.
The request is similar with wking's #142