|
On 02/01/2019 09:59, Olaf van der Spek
wrote:
you sure about that ? I mean... that's what the doc says, but thatOn Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jérémy Rosen <jeremy.rosen@xxxxxxxx> 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. 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... --
|
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
