On 02/01/2019 09:59, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jérémy Rosen <jeremy.ro...@smile.fr> wrote:
i.e if A Requires B, you would expect failures of B to prevent A from starting.
* This is not the case if B is (randomly) scheduled after A.
* This is the case if B is (randomly) scheduled before A.
This is the race the implicit After= would prevent.
There is no such race as Requires without After doesn't stop A from
starting (as it can't).
>From the docs:
If one of the other units fails to activate, and an ordering
dependency After= on the failing unit is set, this unit will not be
started.
you sure about that ? I mean... that's what the doc says, but that
would mean that requires without after is like Wants+PartOf
that's kinda weird. maybe it's an aritifact from early systemd, but
it sounds kinda inconsistent...
Also it means that if you start A, this will start B
if B fails, A is still started ? I don't think a failure of B schedules
a shutdown of A
This whole thing is very confusing...
--
SMILE <http://www.smile.eu/>
20 rue des Jardins
92600 Asnières-sur-Seine
*Jérémy ROSEN*
Architecte technique
Responsable de l'expertise Smile-ECS
email jeremy.ro...@smile.fr <mailto:jeremy.ro...@smile.fr>
phone +33141402967
url http://www.smile.eu
Twitter <https://twitter.com/GroupeSmile> Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/smileopensource> LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/smile> Github
<https://github.com/Smile-SA>
Découvrez l’univers Smile, rendez-vous sur smile.eu
<http://smile.eu/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signature>
eco Pour la planète, n'imprimez ce mail que si c'est nécessaire
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
