On Tue, 21.05.13 15:27, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:10:55PM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote: > > Just calling service_enter_dead() does not kill any processes. > > As a result, the old process may still be running when the new one is > > started. > > After a watchdog failure the service is in an undefined state. > > Using the normal shutdown mechanism makes no sense. Instead all processes > > are just killed and the service can try to restart. > Applied. > > (I thought for a while whether we should allow normal shutdown for > watchdog-failed services. Sometimes that could be useful, but for > the majority of cases just killing the process is probably the right > option.) Hmm, I am pretty sure we should still execute the ExecStopPost= commands, since their purpose might be to clean up things. If the watchdog timeout is hit we can assume that a clean shutdown won't work, so we shouldn't try to execute ExecStop= or try SIGTERM and go directly to SIGKILL, but ExecStopPre= afterwards we should execute, I am pretty sure. I have changed git now to enter STOP_SIGKILL rather than FINAL_SIGKILL hence. I hope this makes sense? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
