[15586] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Project review: Parallel KDC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Hudson)
Thu Mar 11 18:28:19 2010
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100311225455.GM19297@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:28:10 -0500
Message-ID: <1268350090.18898.502.camel@ray>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 17:54 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> - I don't see the need for two options. One option will do.
To clarify, I am only adding one option (-w NUM). The project proposal
mentions an existing option (-n) as being exclusive with -w, because
"don't fork, but fork off 5 worker threads" doesn't make sense.
Or at least, that was my thinking at the time. Since then, it became
clear to me that there needs to be a supervisor process to make the
existing -P pidfile option meaningful. -n -w 5 could mean "fork off
five worker threads and run the supervisor in the foreground." I don't
know what would be a good application for that, other than perhaps the
test suite.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
