On 12/14/2017 01:47 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 13:24 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> On 12/14/2017 12:48 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 12:05 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >>>> +Wants=rpcbind.socket rpcbind.target >>>> +After=rpcbind.socket rpcbind.target >>> >>> Is this needed when the service has socket activation support? If the >>> only interaction with it is through the socket, it shouldn't matter >>> even if the service is not actually up yet - clients can already open >>> connections to the socket regardless. >> >> Well things are working as is... but this man page paragraph >> was pointed out to me so I though these Wants and After were needed. >> >> So you saying this patch is not needed? > > I'm not familiar enough with rpcbind stuff to say with certainty that > it wouldn't be needed, but at least it seems plausible to me that it > would not be. The mechanism described on the man page is a way to > implement ordering if needed, but if the early availability of the > socket means ordering is never an issue, then it can be ignored. > > >>> And regardless, that "After" for rpcbind.target seems backwards. >>> Shouldn't it be "Before", so that the target being up signals that the >>> service has already been started? >> >> I think this makes sense... So if the patch is needed I'll add >> Before=rpcbind.target and remove the target from the After= > > Yes. > >>> Not directly related, but if that comment is accurate and the socket >>> should be used "no matter what", perhaps that should be "Requires" >>> instead of "Wants" so that if the socket could not be opened for some >>> reason, the service fails instead of starting without socket >>> activation? >>> >> >> I was afraid of opening a can a worms here... :-) >> >> So you are saying Wants and After should be changed to >> >> Requires=rpcbind.socket >> Before=rpcbind.target > > Depends on the exact semantics you want. "Wants" means that systemd > will try to start the socket if the service is started, but will > continue with the service start even if the dependency fails. > "Requires" guarantees that the service will never be started without > the socket active - if opening the socket fails, then the service start > will return failure too. If you know that the socket unit should always > be used, or the service will either fail or do the wrong thing without > it (such as open a socket with parameters different from what was > configured for the socket unit, and which the admin didn't expect) then > Requires may be more appropriate. I think I agree with you... thanks! steved. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
