Thanks for the quick reply, Andrei. It sounds like there is indeed a race
condition in my code then since there is nothing explicit in my
implementation of service A that makes it wait until it has processed the
method call from service B before it stops listening for method calls. Did
I get that r
В Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:22:50 -0700
Kurt von Laven пишет:
> Hello folks,
>
> I am trying to ensure that my system DBus service has time to handle a DBus
> method call before it shuts down. My DBus service is implemented as a
> system systemd service; let's call it service A. It runs a single-thread
Hello folks,
I am trying to ensure that my system DBus service has time to handle a DBus
method call before it shuts down. My DBus service is implemented as a
system systemd service; let's call it service A. It runs a single-threaded,
synchronous event loop that listens for DBus method calls and h
After discussing this with Kay, I went ahead and pushed this. Feedback
still welcome of course.
Cheers,
Tom
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> This provides equivalent functionality to libudev-device, but in the
> systemd style. The public API only caters to creating sd_devi
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>
They should only get created when something accesses the corresp
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
>>> They should only get created when something accesses the corresponding
>>> tty. deallocvt(1) can kill unused ones and the devic
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> They should only get created when something accesses the corresponding
>> tty. deallocvt(1) can kill unused ones and the device nodes should
>> disappear.
>>
>
> deallocvt doesn't seem
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski
>>> wrote:
On Apr 1, 2015 12:56 PM, "Kay Sievers" wrote:
>>>
> Do yo
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 2015 12:56 PM, "Kay Sievers" wrote:
>>
Do you have an idea why the VM does not accept the custom font? If
>>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 2015 12:56 PM, "Kay Sievers" wrote:
>
>>> Do you have an idea why the VM does not accept the custom font? If
>>> that is something obvious, and we can detect it, we could mak
On 04/01/2015 02:37 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Note that I intend to add more subvolume lines to tmpfiles even. For
example, I am pretty sure /home should be created as subvolume if it
doesn't exist already, and similar.
I'm afraid that will still only work on a single host setup (
laptop
I pushed a version of this only handling the multi-port devices. We
can deal with multi-function if and when they appear in the wild.
-t
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> I'd argue that having firmware labels for such devices makes no sense, but
> they exist, so make sure
>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> This provides equivalent functionality to libudev-device, but in the
> systemd style. The public API only caters to creating sd_device objects
> from for devices that already exist in /sys, there is no support for
> listening for monitoring ue
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2015 12:56 PM, "Kay Sievers" wrote:
>> Do you have an idea why the VM does not accept the custom font? If
>> that is something obvious, and we can detect it, we could make
>> vconsole-setup check for it. But then again, fixing s
On Apr 1, 2015 12:56 PM, "Kay Sievers" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski
> >>> wrote
A stateless system has a tmpfs as root file system. That obviously
does not have any block device associated with it. So try falling back
to the device of the /usr filesystem if the root filesystem fails.
---
src/gpt-auto-generator/gpt-auto-generator.c | 9 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
/boot does not exist on a stateless system, so do not get
confused by that.
---
src/efi-boot-generator/efi-boot-generator.c | 23 +++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/efi-boot-generator/efi-boot-generator.c
b/src/efi-boot-generator/efi-boot-ge
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
>>> wrote:
On Wed, 21.01.15 19:15, Andy Lutomirski (l...@amacapita
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21.01.15 19:15, Andy Lutomirski (l...@amacapital.net) wrote:
>>>
Hi all-
When running virtm
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21.01.15 19:15, Andy Lutomirski (l...@amacapital.net) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all-
>>>
>>> When running virtme (a simple vm gadget) on Fedora 21, the slowest
>>> part of boot
This method shouldn't provide any noticeable speedup for the --list-boots
case, but any offset based lookup should be greatly improved.
We now don't have to aggregate the full boot listing just so we can jump
to specific position, which can be a real pain on big journals just for
a mere "-b -1" cas
I'd argue that having firmware labels for such devices makes no sense, but they
exist, so make sure
we handle them as best as we can.
---
src/udev/udev-builtin-net_id.c | 64 --
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/udev/udev-b
On Wed, 01.04.15 16:02, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering [2015-04-01 15:48 +0200]:
> > But why do you say "when it doesn't make sense"? Why do you think this
> > doesn't make sense...
>
> As someone who has added hideous workarounds like
>
> | # old rootfs might
Lennart Poettering [2015-04-01 15:48 +0200]:
> But why do you say "when it doesn't make sense"? Why do you think this
> doesn't make sense...
As someone who has added hideous workarounds like
| # old rootfs might contain btrfs subvolumes, remove them
| subvols=$(btrfs subvolume list -o $LXCDIR/
On Sun, 29.03.15 20:42, Dominik Brodowski (li...@dominikbrodowski.net) wrote:
> Dear systemd developers,
>
> In my custom initramfs, lvm vgmknodes successfully creates the device
> nodes for /dev/vg0/home and /dev/vg0/swap .
On current sytemd/udev systems device nodes are created via devtmpfs
b
On Wed, 01.04.15 15:45, Jan Synacek (jsyna...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > I am also against this since chrooting is an implementation detail of
> > mock, nothing more, and the fact that mock's recursive deletion logic
> > cannot handle removal of subvolumes is not directly connected to the
> > fact tha
On 04/01/2015 01:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 01.04.15 12:40, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
diff --git a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
index 494fd1a..9280fd7 100644
--- a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
+++ b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
@@ -1099,9 +1099
Lennart Poettering writes:
> On Wed, 01.04.15 14:33, Jan Synacek (jsyna...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> Creating subvolumes in chrooted environments makes them
>> undeletable and breaks mock.
>
> Humm, I am not convinced that this is a good idea.
>
> The chroot environments are hardly "undeletable", t
On Mon, 30.03.15 09:48, Igor Bukanov (i...@mir2.org) wrote:
> As I understand, the systemd-run utility returns immediately even with
> --service-type=forking. What is the proper way then to wait using a shell
> until the main service process forks the child and exists signaling
> initialization?
On Tue, 31.03.15 00:46, kenneth topp (to...@bllue.org) wrote:
> > Ð Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:35:21 -0400
> > "kenneth topp" пиÑеÑ:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> My system appears healthy, but for some reason systemd not in a good
> >> state.
> >>
> >> From the commands and their output, I have two
On Tue, 31.03.15 11:09, Shawn Landden (sh...@churchofgit.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Shawn Landden wrote:
> > replaces log with abort() to remove strings.
> >
> > saves 3kB from text section of systemd.
> and 7kB from rodata. The saving in text is probably because abort() is
>
On Wed, 01.04.15 14:44, Lukáš Nykrýn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering píše v Út 31. 03. 2015 v 19:28 +0200:
> > On Tue, 31.03.15 16:10, Lukas Nykryn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > Older version of systemd does not have d-bus method "ListUnitsFiltered",
> > > so systemctl -r
On 1 April 2015 at 13:44, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote:
> Lennart Poettering píše v Út 31. 03. 2015 v 19:28 +0200:
>> On Tue, 31.03.15 16:10, Lukas Nykryn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>> > Older version of systemd does not have d-bus method "ListUnitsFiltered",
>> > so systemctl -r will fail just with:
>>
On Wed, 01.04.15 12:40, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >diff --git a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
> >index 494fd1a..9280fd7 100644
> >--- a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
> >+++ b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
> >@@ -1099,9 +1099,15 @@ static int create_item(Item *i) {
On Wed, 01.04.15 14:33, Jan Synacek (jsyna...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Creating subvolumes in chrooted environments makes them
> undeletable and breaks mock.
Humm, I am not convinced that this is a good idea.
The chroot environments are hardly "undeletable", they just require
you to delete them expl
---
Makefile.am | 33 +-
src/libudev/libudev-device-internal.h | 62 ++
src/libudev/libudev-device-private.c | 511 +++---
src/libudev/libudev-device.c | 1808 ++---
4 files changed, 779 insertions(+), 1635 deletions(-)
crea
This provides equivalent functionality to libudev-device, but in the
systemd style. The public API only caters to creating sd_device objects
from for devices that already exist in /sys, there is no support for
listening for monitoring uevents or creating devices received over
the udev netlink proto
Lennart Poettering píše v Út 31. 03. 2015 v 19:28 +0200:
> On Tue, 31.03.15 16:10, Lukas Nykryn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > Older version of systemd does not have d-bus method "ListUnitsFiltered",
> > so systemctl -r will fail just with:
>
> I think I'd really prefer if we'd simply fall bac
On 04/01/2015 12:33 PM, Jan Synacek wrote:
---
src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
index 494fd1a..9280fd7 100644
--- a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
+++ b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
@@ -10
---
src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
index 494fd1a..9280fd7 100644
--- a/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
+++ b/src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c
@@ -1099,9 +1099,15 @@ static int create_item(Item *i)
Creating subvolumes in chrooted environments makes them
undeletable and breaks mock.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205564
Jan Synacek (1):
tmpfiles: don't create subvolumes in chroot
src/tmpfiles/tmpfiles.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.1.0
Lennart Poettering píše v Út 31. 03. 2015 v 19:30 +0200:
> On Mon, 30.03.15 14:42, Lukas Nykryn (lnyk...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > If you havei for example ext4 on iscsi devices it is possible to setup
> > qoutas there. Unfortunatelly because such fstab entry contains _netdev,
> > systemd will not
On 03/31/2015 05:32 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 30.03.15 20:35, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
Heyja
Should this not be dropped and *DE write,integrate/implement an graphical
frontend to systemd for themselves?
It's not like this is receiving the love it needs,
44 matches
Mail list logo
