On Wed, 17.10.12 00:23, Michael Biebl (bi...@debian.org) wrote: > >> As my memory is a bit vague here, I've CCed Lennart, since I don't want > >> to tell nonsense. Lennart, I hope you can chime in here and shed some > >> light on this problem. > > > > systemd only orderes queued jobs against each other. And yes if you have > > a service foobar.service ordered after waldo.service, and waldo.service > > issues a job for foobar.service and blocks on it, then systemd will > > honour the ordering and you might deadlock, indeed. There are various > > Would it be possible to detect such dead lock situations and simply > refuse new requests which would cause a dead lock? > This would make systemd more robust overall.
Sure, but this is a bit like solving the halting problem... I fear this is not really feasible... We thought about this before, but came to no conclusion, and usually the better fix is to just not to wait here. After all, and that is kinda key here: what is expressed in the config file/hook calls *is* simply contradictory... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
