| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: pcp updates: pmwebd security, pmdaroot, libpcp, qa |
| From: | fche@xxxxxxxxxx (Frank Ch. Eigler) |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:26:14 -0500 |
| Cc: | PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <689965523.9103364.1447191909906.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> (Nathan Scott's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:45:09 -0500 (EST)") |
| References: | <190227633.9098813.1447191336585.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <689965523.9103364.1447191909906.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Hi - > [...] > libpcp: allow exclusive socket flag to be passed via hostspec too Can we discuss this PM_CTXFLAG_EXCLUSIVE idea? How is a pmapi user supposed to know whether it should be used? They have no idea how libpcp decides to share sockets to pmcd. They have no idea what the implications of sharing are, in terms of which pmapi operations are affected intuitively or counterintuitively. Even if they did, socket sharing is supposed to be a transparent optimization, beneath the api level. If socket sharing is not working right, let's disable it or fix it, not expose its mysteries to the user. It is an api design mistake to make users cargo-cult a workaround around problems even we don't seem to understand. - FChE |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: pmwebd security (was Re: [RFC] dynamic container switching), Frank Ch. Eigler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] pcp updates: some build/package re-jigging and QA, Lukas Berk |
| Previous by Thread: | pcp updates: pmwebd security, pmdaroot, libpcp, qa, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | [pcp] Homebrew installation for PCP (#51), Paul Smith |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |