Open Stack

On 14/06/13 17:01 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 12:29 -0500, Ray Pekowski wrote:
>> I suppose that since my patch for this code review was given a -2 it needs
>> to be discussed in this mailing list.
>
>Bear in mind that not everyone reading this thread would know what
>review you're talking about. It's this one:
>
>  https://review.openstack.org/31714
>
>> The code review addresses this as a usability problem, but perhaps by
>> approaching it as a bug fix, the community will be more amenable to the
>> proposed solution.  The bug is the failure of enabling the eventlet
>> backdoor functionality on all but the first service that comes up when the
>> backdoor_port is configured to be anything other than 0.  Why provide an
>> option that will 100% fail in a common situation (more than one service)
>> unless one specific value is configured?
>>
>> I see two solutions:
>>
>> 1) Change the backdoor_port configuration option to a boolean named
>> enabled_backdoor and always use a port number of 0.  I don't like this
>> solution.
>
>Honestly, I think it would be perfectly fine if we did two simple
>things:
>
>  1) Logged (at INFO) level the port number chosen
>
>       [INFO] Eventlet backdoor listening on port 4321
>
>  2) Changed the help string for backdoor_port to say "set to zero to
>     enable the backdoor on a random port and non-zero to enable it on a
>     specific port. The chosen port is displayed in the service's log
>     file."
>

+1 

As expressed in the review and in the my other emails, I agree with
the above and I think that's the way we should be headed. Adding linux
socket support would be nice but that definitely belongs to another
patch and another blueprint.

Cheers,
FF

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco