All, Referring to my last email regarding the systemd shutdown behavior. I am working on the assumption that the idea of honoring the first shutdown request is the preferred way to go. If not this email can be ignored.
I have reproduced the same behavior using a fedora 31 machine with systemd v243. I have a proposed fix, including source file change, patch file and sample service which can be used to both show the problem and show the fix. I am not sure if this is the right forum to attach those files. If this is the desired behavior, I am wondering what are my next steps to get this into the next systemd delivery. I have not done this before so I am looking for some instruction? Thanks in advance, -Jay -----Original Message----- From: Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:33 AM To: Burger, Jay <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Dang, James <[email protected]>; Berger, Daniel <[email protected]>; Mahabaleshwar, Niranjan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Shutdown behavior On Fr, 10.01.20 10:56, Jay Burger ([email protected]) wrote: > I made the same type of change in the emergency_action() function in v232. > > Question 1: Would this be considered a problem with the design, > needing an upstream fix? Or would this be considered a particular user > issue, to be fixed with an isolated patch, like we have done? If the > latter is the answer to this then would this be considered a legit fix > for our purposes? Or is there a better way to handle this use case? I > know fixing my user services to not fail on the shutdown would be > preferable, but pulling teeth is not in my skillset. Hmm, so what is the expected behaviour here? If one service requires a reboot and another a poweroff, and one is triggered first and the other second, then I can at least think of four policies that make sense: 1. first requested always wins 2. last requested always wins 3. reboot is the positive outlook, and thus always wins 4. poweorff is the positive outlook, and thus always wins. Unless I am mistaken we currently implement policy 2. Which one would you prefer? Can you make a good case why it would be better in the general case? I have the suspicion we should just adopt the best possible policy here and stick to it and not make things needlessly configurable. But it's a matter of discussion which one that is... > Question 2: I recently found a case where a poweroff shutdown was > triggered while the system was in the "starting" state and a service > failure occurred during the shutdown. In this case my logic change did > not prevent the shutdown from changing to a reboot. This check of the > manager_state found the state was still "starting" and the poweroff > was again changed to a reboot. Is there a different logic path taken > when in the starting state as opposed to the running state? Not really, no. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
