> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:42 PM
> To: Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2)
> Cc: Colin Guthrie; Peter Lemenkov; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Need
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:57 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> See Linux signal(7) for a list of async-signal-safe operations: it's not
> as long a list as you might hope, and mostly contains syscalls. In
> particular, malloc() is not on the list, which rules out a lot of
> library code...
Given howe
On 04/11/13 14:42, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> A lot of (library)
> code is not happy with being initialized in one process and being
> used in another forked off one.
For what it's worth, fork(3posix) also notes this:
* A process shall be created with a single thread. If a multi-threaded
proce
On Sun, 03.11.13 13:42, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) (mho...@de.adit-jv.com) wrote:
> > If you are using systemd intensively, then you may want to use Type=notify.
> >
> > With type=dbus, systemd will consider things ready when you take the name on
> > the bus, but this might not actually be the last
On Sun, 03.11.13 10:40, Peter Lemenkov (lemen...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hello All!
> I'm working on a system service which uses systemd intensively. Right
> now it's socket-activated, with main service of type "simple". I
> recently added support for querying and publishing some internals via
> D-Bus
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 06:18:39PM +, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) wrote:
> Thx for the fast feedback. Good hint with the man page, I'll have a more
> detailed look on the page. I think when you need to stay a bit independent
> from systemd and don't have a dbus interface which can be used for
>
> -Original Message-
> From: systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:systemd-devel-
> boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Cristian Rodríguez
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 3:25 PM
> To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-dev
El 03/11/13 10:42, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) escribió:
Isn't the classical Linux way an option to?
- the daemon does its initialization with the calling thread
- once it is done with the initialization, it forks off a process that goes on
with the daemons work (the main loop probably)
- the call
On Sunday 2013-11-03 14:42, Hoyer, Marko (ADITG/SW2) wrote:
>
>Isn't the classical Linux way an option to?
>- the daemon does its initialization with the calling thread
>- once it is done with the initialization, it forks off a process that goes on
>with the daemons work (the main loop probably)
>
Re: [systemd-devel] Need advice on daemon's architecture
>
> 'Twas brillig, and Peter Lemenkov at 03/11/13 06:40 did gyre and gimble:
> > Hello All!
> > I'm working on a system service which uses systemd intensively. Right
> > now it's socket-activated, wi
'Twas brillig, and Peter Lemenkov at 03/11/13 06:40 did gyre and gimble:
> Hello All!
> I'm working on a system service which uses systemd intensively. Right
> now it's socket-activated, with main service of type "simple". I
> recently added support for querying and publishing some internals via
>
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Does it add anything if I change
> type of a main service to "dbus" thus allowing systemd to know for
> sure if my service is fully initialized?
Yes. Changing to Type=dbus will cause systemd to only consider the
service fully started after
12 matches
Mail list logo
