Re: [PATCH 0/7] Master/Worker Enhancements

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 02:45:36PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 07:29:12AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:49:00AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > here is my latest round of patches for the master/worker code
> > > that I have been working on to allow haproxy to be restarted without
> > > dropping or refusing connections to existing proxies if possible.
> > >
> > > These patches are available at
> > >
> > > git://github.com/horms/haproxy.git master
> > >
> > > They apply on top of the previous patches that I have posted. If there
> > > is any confusion about this I am happy to repost all the patches.
> >
> > Thank you for the update, I'll update my tree here. I have started
> > the review last week, but it takes a lot of time (I hardly have contiguous
> > time to spend on it).
>
> I understand, its a lot of change to digest.

Exactly. In fact, I've already read all the patches individually, but as you know, reviewing in context in the "hope" to catch possible side effects is quite a different thing.

When the review work is finished, what I plan to do is to try to remege a few patches (mainly the ones which we changed afterwards, such as adding libcap then reverting it). I'd also like to make a cosmetic change, which consists in renaming "master_worker" to "master-worker", as I'm trying to get rid of underscores in new param names. I found them to be not-so-common among non-developers and some people are confused with them...

> > BTW, I have two minor build fixes for less-recent gccs, do you want them
> > so that you can get them into your tree ? They're dirty right now, it was
> > to help me progress on the review.
>
> Sure, if it helps you I can put them in my tree.

Fine, please find them attached.

> > > The highlights of this patch series is
> > > * Run master process as a privileged process and run it outside the chroot
> >
> > Cool, that's perfect. This will also allow us not to rely on libcap.
> > I already noticed that the build with libcap failed on several systems
> > I had around, either because they were too old or because libcap was
> > not installed.
>
> The dependency on libcap should now be gone :-)

I've already noticed when reading patch 4 :-)

Thanks!
Willy