Project review: Parallel KDC

Greg Hudson ghudson at MIT.EDU
Thu Mar 11 18:28:10 EST 2010

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.

More information about the krbdev mailing list