Lennart Poettering wrote on 18/08/14 15:05: > On Fri, 15.08.14 21:10, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> >> 2014-08-15 12:50 GMT+02:00 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net>: >>> I think most of the confusion here comes from the fact that sysv service >>> restarts don't care about ordering at all, really, and we do. But the >>> answer to that is not to weaken the current strong semantics of >>> blocking, but simply not to request blocking operation at all, i.e. use >>> --no-block, and just queue things in, instead of waiting for them. >>> >>> Note that on FEdora the sysv /sbin/service glue actually adds in >>> --no-block for many cases, too, due to the stricter requirements of >>> systemd there. >> >> I just had a look at /sbin/service and/etc/init.d/functions as >> shipped by F20 and couldn't find any traces of --no-block. >> >> I'd be interested to know under what conditions you add --no-block. > > Ah, sorry, it doesn't use --no-block. But it does use the > ignore-dependencies stuff, look for SYSTEMCTL_IGNORE_DEPENDENCIES in > /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions.
I was always confused why the SYSTEMCTL_IGNORE_DEPENDENCIES hack was used here. In Mageia I used a similarly implemented SYSTEMCTL_NO_BLOCK instead and seems to be fine for our uses. In my head not blocking seems "safer" than ignoring deps, but I can understand the desire for the service to be "ready" after the operation is complete... anyway in the places where this was needed for us it didn't seem to matter in practice. Cheers Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
