On Wed, 05.02.14 06:56, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: > > already problem enough that we pretend we allow ExecReload= to be > > asynchronous like that... It's a question of allowing bad code > > through... > > I do not suggest "send it a singnal and pray for it". You send a signal > (or whatever) and wait for MAINPID to exit. MAINPID is *the* service for > systemd. Service exists while it runs; service is stopped when it > exits. I do not understand what is bad about it, sorry.
Well, it's about sending signals, then we do that for people anyway... I mean, either people use the standard way to shut down daemons by sending SIGTERM, and then we'll do all for them, they need no configuration at all. Or they have some complex interfacing in place, but then we should be able to assume that it is synchronous. But the middle place of something where they shut down things asynchronously but in a non-standard way sounds really off to me... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
