On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:54:49AM +0200, Dr. Werner Fink wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 06:02:37PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Frederic Crozat <fcro...@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > See https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725412 > > > > Hm, that really does not look convincing. There is a fundamental > > problem here (as Ludwig Nessel points out in the linked discussion: > > "sysctl is broken by design unfortunately."), and the discussion nor > > the patch do not get to the bottom of that. > > > > Moreover, (essentially) this patch was already posted and rejected > > last year. Lennart then wrote: > > > > "Well, most modules are loaded asynchronously from udev, so I fear this > > won't do much... > > > > /etc/sysctl.d/ is really only for sysctl settings that exist all the > > time, and -- as a special exception -- for network-device related > > settings, which we set via a udev rule. > > > > If people want to apply sysctls based on specific modules that are > > loaded, or based on specific hw that shows up (i.e. hw that isn't a > > network device) the only sane way is probably via a udev rule..." > > The only problem with udev rules is that many system administrators > do not know enough how to write and how to place such rules. What > about simple dependencies for such sysctl settings for specific modules. > Maybe by using a special name spavce below sysctl.d directories or a > special comment within the configure files below modules-load.d > directories. Or similar like the unit configuration of services. I pushed the patch from Cristian Rodríguez, esentially identical to this. I also added a small example to sysctl.d(5), loading bridge module statically and setting some settings... and another one using udev rules. At least the situation is documented now.
Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
