22.02.2020 22:50, jay.bur...@fujitsu.com пишет: > All, > > Referring to my last email regarding the systemd shutdown behavior. I am > working on the assumption that the idea of honoring the first shutdown request > is the preferred way to go. If not this email can be ignored. > > I have reproduced the same behavior using a fedora 31 machine with systemd > v243. I have a proposed fix, including source file change, patch file and > sample service > which can be used to both show the problem and show the fix. I am not sure if > this is the right forum to attach those files.
Create pull request on guthub: https://github.com/systemd/systemd > > If this is the desired behavior, I am wondering what are my next steps to > get this into the next systemd delivery. I have not done this before so I am > looking for some instruction? > > Thanks in advance, > -Jay > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:33 AM > To: Burger, Jay <jay.bur...@us.fujitsu.com> > Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Dang, James > <james.d...@us.fujitsu.com>; Berger, Daniel <dan.ber...@us.fujitsu.com>; > Mahabaleshwar, Niranjan <niranjan.mahabalesh...@us.fujitsu.com> > Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Shutdown behavior > > On Fr, 10.01.20 10:56, Jay Burger (jay.bur...@us.fujitsu.com) wrote: > >> I made the same type of change in the emergency_action() function in v232. >> >> Question 1: Would this be considered a problem with the design, >> needing an upstream fix? Or would this be considered a particular user >> issue, to be fixed with an isolated patch, like we have done? If the >> latter is the answer to this then would this be considered a legit fix >> for our purposes? Or is there a better way to handle this use case? I >> know fixing my user services to not fail on the shutdown would be >> preferable, but pulling teeth is not in my skillset. > > Hmm, so what is the expected behaviour here? If one service requires a reboot > and another a poweroff, and one is triggered first and the other second, then > I can at least think of four policies that make > sense: > > 1. first requested always wins > > 2. last requested always wins > > 3. reboot is the positive outlook, and thus always wins > > 4. poweorff is the positive outlook, and thus always wins. > > Unless I am mistaken we currently implement policy 2. Which one would you > prefer? Can you make a good case why it would be better in the general case? > > I have the suspicion we should just adopt the best possible policy here and > stick to it and not make things needlessly configurable. But it's a matter of > discussion which one that is... > >> Question 2: I recently found a case where a poweroff shutdown was >> triggered while the system was in the "starting" state and a service >> failure occurred during the shutdown. In this case my logic change did >> not prevent the shutdown from changing to a reboot. This check of the >> manager_state found the state was still "starting" and the poweroff >> was again changed to a reboot. Is there a different logic path taken >> when in the starting state as opposed to the running state? > > Not really, no. > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Berlin > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel > _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
