On Tue, 07.02.12 13:18, Michael Olbrich ([email protected]) wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been thinking a bit more about this. There are some problems with > this. Consider a service that works like this: > 2. might be a bit too restrictive for more relaxed scenarios, especially > when combined with rebooting. > > And 3. is just the opposite. It's not enough for critical services. Also, I > think there is a bit too much magic here for my taste. > > I'd probably prefer 4. with with an option to select between 1. and 2. > > Comments?
The startup phase (o.e. until READY=1) is covered by the usual timeout logic anyway, so I'd just say that we shouldn't even wait for the first WATCHDOG=1 to be sent, but immediately start the watchdog when we leave the startup phase, if WatchdogSec= is set. That way, the startup phase is covered by TimeoutSec= and the runtime by WatchdogSec= and beyond these settings not further conditionalized. I think this would be simple and straightforward to understand? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
