On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 05:34:03PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:38 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 02:16:46PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:00 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > The effect on this though is that --timeout arg now has to be > > > > specified twice so we'll get a running process of > > > > > > > > "libvirtd --timeout 120 --timeout 0" > > > > > > > > which I find quite unappealing, so I'm not really in favour of > > > > this revert, especially as we don't actually use the sysconf > > > > files from other init systems > > > > > > I don't think it's a big deal, especially considering that most > > > people will not end up actually changing the default, but I'm okay > > > with flipping this around and moving --timeout from the service > > > file to the ARGS variable in the corresponding sysconf file for all > > > daemons instead, especially since Jano pointed out that a lot of > > > sysconf files already look like that on a Fedora installation. > > > > > > Would that work for you? > > > > IIUC, what you describe is what the current setup already does, > > so you mean just dropping this patch ? > > That's currently only true of libvirtd: for all other daemons, the > use of --timeout is embedded in the service file, and there is no > sysconf file at all. I'm suggesting we achieve consistency by > adopting the same approach for all other daemons as well. Oh, I see what you mean, yes I agree with that. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
