Add hooks order explanation in runtime.md
#156
Conversation
| If a hook returns a non-zero exit code, then an error including the exit code and the stderr is returned to the caller and the container is torn down. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can probably leave these blank-line insertions out ;).
|
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>
|
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 12:20:31AM -0700, 梁辰晔 (Liang Chenye) wrote:
Why close this? |
|
I opened a new one to make patch clearer to maintainers. |
|
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