On Mon, 23.07.12 14:57, Michal Schmidt ([email protected]) wrote: > > On 07/20/2012 12:08 PM, Michal Sekletar wrote: > >we found this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807885 and > >we already invested some effort to introducing new timeout types. We > >have a patch prepared introducing new service timeout types, namely > >TimoutStartSec and TimeoutStopSec. > > I agree with the decision to introduce the two new timeout options, > while still supporting TimeoutSec for compatibility. > > > Semantic would be as follows. Old > >timeout TimeoutSec defines common timeout for both, start and stop of > >service. If new timeout is used it will override current setting, which > >is either specified by TimeoutSec or default. However another variant > >which was proposed by Michal Schmidt, changes described behavior in a > >way that timeout which is specified last in unit file is applied and > >always overrides the previous settings. > > I don't think this description explains the difference well enough, > so let me help by providing some examples: > > Example #1: > > /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service: > ... > [Service] > TimeoutSec=100 > ... > > /etc/systemd/system/foo.service: > .include /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service > [Service] > TimeoutStopSec=200 > > In this example I believe we both agree that the result would be: > start timeout = 100 > stop timeout = 200 > > > Example #2: > > /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service: > ... > [Service] > TimeoutStartSec=50 > TimeoutStopSec=100 > ... > > /etc/systemd/system/foo.service: > .include /usr/lib/systemd/system/foo.service > [Service] > TimeoutSec=200 > > In this example we disagree. In your proposal the TimeoutSec would > be entirely ignored, because new timeout options were used. I.e. the > result would be: > start timeout = 50 > stop timeout = 100 > With my proposal the result would be: > start timeout = 200 > stop timeout = 200 > because the TimeoutSec would have the same effect as setting both > TimeoutStartSec= and TimeoutStopSec=. > > The advantage of my proposal is that the administrator's override > (which may have been in place before the introduction of the new > timeout options) is still effective.
I agree fully with Michal. This appears to be the best way to expose these new options. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
