On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 11:15:47PM +0100, Jouke Witteveen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 08:22:27PM +0100, Jouke Witteveen wrote: > >> --- > >> > >> This fixes #87251 > > > > This is actually important information that should be included in the > > commit message (i.e. above not below "---"). We usually include the > > full url, since we also use distribution bug trackers and having the full > > url makes things easier to click. In this case: > > > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87251 > > Will do. For consistency it is also better to not abort propagation if > one unit fails to reload, so I have a second version ready already. > > >> static void service_enter_reload_by_notify(Service *s) { > >> + _cleanup_bus_error_free_ sd_bus_error error = SD_BUS_ERROR_NULL; > >> + int r; > >> + > >> assert(s); > >> > >> if (s->timeout_start_usec > 0) > >> service_arm_timer(s, s->timeout_start_usec); > >> > >> + r = manager_propagate_reload(UNIT(s)->manager, UNIT(s), > >> JOB_REPLACE, false, &error); > >> + if(r < 0) > >> + log_unit_warning(UNIT(s)->id, "%s failed to schedule > >> propagation of reload: %s", UNIT(s)->id, bus_error_message(&error, -r)); > >> + > > > > Let's say that a.service has PropagateReloadsTo=b.service, and a.service > > provides > > the RELOADING=1 notification during a reload. > > What happens if a reload is requested with 'systemctl reload a', and systemd > > schedules a reload of a and b. Is it possible for b to be reloaded a second > > time > > as a result of notification of a? This should not happen, have you verified > > that > > this will not happen? > > Isn't that just bad behavior? Sending a RELOADING=1 notification after > a reload is initiated? I guess if both service_enter_reload() and > service_enter_reload_by_notify() are called it is justified to > propagate two reloads. Before testing it might be nice to know what we > want :-).
Hm. Looking at the code, sending periodic RELOADING=1 notifications can be used to sidestep the timeouts. This does not look OK, but maybe I'm misreading the code. You are right that if a service sends a spurious RELOADING=1 message it is buggy. What we want is idempotent behaviour, where a message sent when the unit was already known by systemd to be reloading is ignored. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
