On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:04:40PM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: > It was <2013-06-17 pon 20:51>, when Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Fri, 14.06.13 14:33, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) > > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:03:00AM +0200, Łukasz Stelmach wrote: > >>> We are converting some daemons to socket activation. Most of them > >>> open unix sockets and manage incoming connections in a main-loop, so > >>> the easiest way to convert it is to create Accept=false socket with > >>> systemd. > >>> > >>> Now, it is quite well described how to start such daemon, however, > >>> there is little about shutting it down. Should the daemon close(2) > >>> the received sockets? Should it unlink(2) them from a filesystem? > >> close() yes, unlink() no. > > > > Strictly speaking you don't even have to do that. The kernel will > > clean up left-over fds when your process exits, hence you don't have > > to close it explicitly. > > > > But you certainly should not unlink() the socket in the fs, because > > then the socket will not be accessible anymore. > > Maybe I've asked the wrong question. I should rather have asked: Can I > close? Can I unlink? Because that's what the code does now and we wanted > to know which parts are common for standalone and > systemd-socket-activated paths. > > Thanks for the information. > > PS. I think this information should be somewher in the docs. Do you > think the paragraph describing Accept= in the systemd.socket.5 man page > is the right place? Yes.
Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
