On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 05.04.2014 17:32, schrieb Thomas Bächler: >> Am 05.04.2014 11:35, schrieb Tom Gundersen: >>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> If a persistent timer has no stamp file yet, it behaves just like a normal >>>> timer until it runs for the first time. If the system is always shut down >>>> while the timer is supposed to run, a stamp file is never created and >>>> Peristent=true has no effect. >>>> >>>> This patch fixes this by creating a stamp file with the current time >>>> when the timer is first started. >>> >>> If timers are started at early boot (which sounds like a common >>> scenario), I guess /var will not yet be writable so this will be a >>> noop, no? Maybe it would be better to write out these files at >>> shutdown instead (before unmounting anything)? >> >> I failed to hit "reply all" last time, so apologies for sending you this >> mail twice, Tom. >> >> Persistent=true timers have an implicit dependency on >> RequiresMountsFor=/var/lib/systemd/timers. >> >> $ systemctl show -p RequiresMountsFor updatedb.timer >> RequiresMountsFor=/var/lib/systemd/timers >> >> $ systemctl cat updatedb.timer >> # /usr/lib/systemd/system/updatedb.timer >> [Unit] >> Description=Daily locate database update >> >> [Timer] >> OnCalendar=daily >> AccuracySec=12h >> Persistent=true > > I don't want to be annoying, but I'd really like an ACK or NAK on that > patch.
To me it looks good, but I don't know this area too well, so would prefer Lennart (or someone else) to look at it before applying. Lennart is currently travelling, so may take a bit more time. Sorry about that. Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
