]] Lennart Poettering > On Wed, 17.10.12 00:23, Michael Biebl (bi...@debian.org) wrote: > > > >> As my memory is a bit vague here, I've CCed Lennart, since I don't want > > >> to tell nonsense. Lennart, I hope you can chime in here and shed some > > >> light on this problem. > > > > > > systemd only orderes queued jobs against each other. And yes if you have > > > a service foobar.service ordered after waldo.service, and waldo.service > > > issues a job for foobar.service and blocks on it, then systemd will > > > honour the ordering and you might deadlock, indeed. There are various > > > > Would it be possible to detect such dead lock situations and simply > > refuse new requests which would cause a dead lock? > > This would make systemd more robust overall. > > Sure, but this is a bit like solving the halting problem... I fear this > is not really feasible... We thought about this before, but came to no > conclusion, and usually the better fix is to just not to wait > here. After all, and that is kinda key here: what is expressed in the > config file/hook calls *is* simply contradictory...
No, it's not. Doing a reload when a service is not started is a no-op, so I actually think that the reordering done when there is a start action in the queue is simply wrong, and systemd should simply return OK. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
