On 07/02/2018 01:08 PM, dubo163 wrote:
From: dubobo <dubobo@didichuxing.com>
the libvirtd pid file is not match the os process pid number which is smaller than before.
this would be exist if the libvirtd process coredump or the os process was killed which the next pid number is smaller.
you can be also edit the pid file to write the longer number than before,then restart the libvirtd service.
Signed-off-by: dubobo <dubobo@didichuxing.com>
I'm sorry, but this has to be your legal name, which I believe dubobo is not. Also as I was pointed out earlier, the name of the author of the patch has to be legal name.
--- src/util/virpidfile.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/util/virpidfile.c b/src/util/virpidfile.c index 58ab29f..8b0ff99 100644 --- a/src/util/virpidfile.c +++ b/src/util/virpidfile.c @@ -445,6 +445,12 @@ int virPidFileAcquirePath(const char *path, }
snprintf(pidstr, sizeof(pidstr), "%lld", (long long) pid); + if (ftruncate(fd, 0) < 0) { + VIR_FORCE_CLOSE(fd); + return -1;
So if ftruncate() fails, caller sees -1 but no error message. This is not nice because users then have no idea what went wrong. All they see is a failed attempt to start libvirtd. We need virReportSystemError() here.
+ } + + lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET);
This is pretty useless. Since open() nothing was written to/read from the pidfile. So we don't really need to seek in it. Michal