Can you please resolve it from your end actually I don't no exactly where the loop hole.
Thanks and Regards Ram On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, 19:54 Hans-Dieter Doll, <hans-dieter.d...@drb.insel.de> wrote: > > typically that issue is a sign of bad design and just worked by luck > > with a simple init system lacking of concepts for service states > well, the design is from last century :-) > > > you should split your stuff into multiple systemd units and pack them > > into a target instead wrap a dozen of more or less independent things > > in a single unit > > The programs in question are interaktive programs (like an editor), > which are called by different users several times in parallel with > parameters they want. > (The programs attach to the supervisor process via shared memory) > > I'm new to systemd, but I don't think I can write units for this. > > But if systemd kills these processes first with a SIGTERM and only > after some time with SIGKILL, I could catch SIGTERM and can orderly > terminate the processes. This would solve our problem. > > I assume systemd does it this way, right? > > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
