On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:24:15PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to have your opinion on the following problem: > > In case a unit fails, we are using an OnFailure unit to > handle the error (e. g. reset the config of the failed > unit) and restart it. > > In one case the failed unit had dependencies to other > units. Therefore, the failed unit was (re-)started when > the other units started. > > This way, the OnFailure unit was active (which could > delete the config), *while* the failed unit, which reads > the config, was restarting! > > Is this behavior intended or could it be an advantage to > let a unit "conflict" to its OnFailure unit in some way? Yes, it's intended.
> A first idea for a workaround is to add an "After" > dependency to the OnFailure unit in the real unit's > service file. This way a job for the unit should be > created but the unit would not start until the > OnFailure unit finbished. Is this correct? That's should work. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
