Re: [systemd-devel] Can LSBInitScipts specify an dependency on systemd unit?

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/09/2016 09:02 AM, Ross Lagerwall wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Bao Nguyen <bao...@gmail.com> wrote: >> With a new enough systemd, you should be able to add a snipp

Re: [systemd-devel] Can LSBInitScipts specify an dependency on systemd unit?

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Bao Nguyen wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I have a script written by SysVinit, can I declare ordering of this script > with a systemd unit in "X-Start-Before:" and "X-Start-After:", for ex > > X-Start-Before: systemd_1.service > X-Start-After:

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] cgroup-util: Don't send SIGCONT after SIGKILL

--- src/shared/cgroup-util.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/shared/cgroup-util.c b/src/shared/cgroup-util.c index bc5030e..e595d89 100644 --- a/src/shared/cgroup-util.c +++ b/src/shared/cgroup-util.c @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ int cg_kill(const char *controller,

[systemd-devel] TimeoutStopSec is ignored (regression)

. Thanks -- Ross Lagerwall ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] cgroup: Handle error when destroying cgroup

If a cgroup fails to be destroyed (most likely because there are still processes running as part of a service after the main pid exits), don't free and remove the cgroup unit from the manager. This fixes a regression introduced by the cgroup rework in v205 where systemd would forget about

[systemd-devel] Processes running after a service has stopped

└─5731 /home/ross/tester start Is there a reason for the way this is handled? Perhaps systemd could show existing processes for a service regardless of the state the service is in? Also, perhaps systemd could allow killing these processes even if the service is stopped? Regards -- Ross

Re: [systemd-devel] Processes running after a service has stopped

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:53:33PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 28.11.14 13:42, Ross Lagerwall (rosslagerw...@gmail.com) wrote: The handling of a service with KillMode set to something other than cgroup is a bit confusing (as of systemd 208). Hmm, could you test

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] install: make reenable work with templated units

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 04:12:33PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:11:50PM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote: Before, systemctl reenable getty@tty1.service would fail with: Failed to issue method call: File exists To fix this, reimplement reenable explicitly

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] rules: only run systemd-sysctl when a network device is added

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:09:53AM +0200, Michał Bartoszkiewicz wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Ross Lagerwall rosslagerw...@gmail.com wrote: OK, thanks. But my testing shows otherwise: I created a .conf file with: net.ipv4.conf.enp1s0.forwarding=1 (where eth0 is the old name

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] install: make reenable work with templated units

Before, systemctl reenable getty@tty1.service would fail with: Failed to issue method call: File exists To fix this, reimplement reenable explicitly as a disable followed by an enable. This is shorter and is how the man page documents its behavior. --- src/shared/install.c | 38

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] rules: only run systemd-sysctl when a network device is added

/forwarding=1 after a reboot with the patch applied. I'm still not clear about in which situations it could fail? -- Ross Lagerwall ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] rules: only run systemd-sysctl when a network device is added

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:44:23PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:45:12AM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote: Otherwise, when a network device is renamed, systemd-sysctl is run twice with the same network device name: once for ACTION=add and once for ACTION

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] mount: Don't add conflicts with umount.target for certain mounts

At startup, mount_enumerate is called at manager startup. This creates a unit for each mount point in /proc/self/mountinfo. If no unit for the mount point has been loaded yet (which is quite possible since mount_enumerate is called early), a unit is created and set to conflict with umount.target.

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] rules: only run systemd-sysctl when a network device is added

Otherwise, when a network device is renamed, systemd-sysctl is run twice with the same network device name: once for ACTION=add and once for ACTION=move. --- rules/99-systemd.rules.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rules/99-systemd.rules.in

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-shutdown static linking (was: Please proof-read: ...)

this interacts with mount_load which fills in a whole bunch of stuff and mount_add_default_dependencies which adds a conflict with umount.target so long as the mount point is not /. Regards -- Ross Lagerwall ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-shutdown static linking

: / NonBlocking: no ... It has Source Path as fstab and From /proc/self/mountinfo as yes. Regards -- Ross Lagerwall ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-shutdown static linking (was: Please proof-read: ...)

: halt I have attached the output of systemctl show -- -.mount and /etc/fstab and /proc/cmdline. I see that Conflicts=umount.target is set, though I have no idea why. I haven't changed too much in the setup, at least not related to mounting. Regards -- Ross Lagerwall Id=-.mount Names=-.mount

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-shutdown static linking (was: Please proof-read: ...)

desktop). That's after not changing the config at all. Hope that helps, -- Ross Lagerwall ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-shutdown static linking (was: Please proof-read: ...)

/stop finished, result=failed Failed unmounting /. Should it be completely statically linked? -- Ross Lagerwall ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-cgroups-agent failed to get dbus connection

On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:31:58AM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote: I have noticed sometimes during shutdown, the following message appears on screen twice: systemd-cgroups-agent failed to get dbus connection: failed to connect to socket /org/freedesktop/systemd/private connection refused

[systemd-devel] systemd-cgroups-agent failed to get dbus connection

, the reply timeout expired, or the network connection was broken. May 07 09:13:05 hobo systemd[1]: Stopped Getty on tty1. Seems harmless enough, but there could be some sort of bug here. -- Ross Lagerwall ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] man: fix typos in systemd.special

--- man/systemd.special.xml | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/man/systemd.special.xml b/man/systemd.special.xml index 61d45ff..7164b1e 100644 --- a/man/systemd.special.xml +++ b/man/systemd.special.xml @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@

Re: [systemd-devel] systemctl enable does not report all actions

, that the old foo.service is already enabled. # systemctl enable foo.service bar.service Failed to issue method call: File exists I had a similar issue with reenable (and a similarly obscure error message): http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-April/010607.html -- Ross Lagerwall

[systemd-devel] disable/enable vs reenable

/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service' $ sudo systemctl enable getty@tty1.service ln -s '/etc/systemd/system/getty@.service' '/etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service' Is this a bug, a documentation problem or neither? (using Arch Linux with systemd 201) Regards -- Ross