From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCB1CC433F5 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 06:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4K7kS828tvz3bmf for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:17:44 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=n4R4GJ9b; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com (client-ip=192.55.52.88; helo=mga01.intel.com; envelope-from=jiaqing.zhao@linux.intel.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=n4R4GJ9b; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4K7kRN2cyKz3bT0 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:17:03 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1646201825; x=1677737825; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m0iFMuCjOvqLpxeAgCbE/z5+KLE1M97wDiXhLfAwSCE=; b=n4R4GJ9bwIbBes5Gl7OMu0kKEmpKoJO3zR+L5XfKzKRp8D1id2DjX5ba HfXjFF0IYhI3TD8kb2bKuN5VVe0mtpRqZVy2pJ6DNsHufEyPnh47h0p9Q ZmcaP65nBNHySAIKqkIyGtPW1sntKx78qz+UPFl0cSo2a4MIazHokYTp8 /QkMh9QAKbLmzTnRamoUnUdL9GYVnCrjzYUQIsUj6ZNU8qlVrFFQxw9Hs rUftQl3IevxggpFPmArVMBPBMkR3WYHqwiHc0sQ5arMSwItHI+1aaU3kT jvi94QX2qo0pxplKcMbUYVMtCrpkc+50EdbJHj1SusKqtUhvdwsjZHOBY g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10273"; a="277992457" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,148,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="277992457" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Mar 2022 22:16:00 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,148,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="709382305" Received: from jiaqingz-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.255.31.184]) ([10.255.31.184]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Mar 2022 22:15:58 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 14:15:50 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: Checking for network online Content-Language: en-US To: Patrick Williams , Johnathan Mantey References: <37a29642-788c-b966-3b58-214c3d44c8f4@intel.com> <64727f8e-cca3-b04d-e4cf-709ceb60f37f@linux.intel.com> <112c8819-24bc-2a24-45a3-9c919088f43a@linux.intel.com> <3f4f0cc0-7967-66f9-a085-a6b2ae978a01@intel.com> From: Jiaqing Zhao In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jeremy Kerr , OpenBMC Maillist , Lei Yu Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" On 2022-02-25 04:09, Patrick Williams wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:04:12PM -0800, Johnathan Mantey wrote: >> On 2/23/22 09:44, Jiaqing Zhao wrote: >>> On 2022-02-23 21:48, Patrick Williams wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:09:19AM +0800, Jiaqing Zhao wrote: > >> There may be openbmc powered servers that do use the distributed logging >> provided by rsyslogd. If there are then globally removing network-online >> from the rsyslog service file is undesirable. I consider the same to be >> true of assigning a default RequiredForOnline=false. >> >> Based on the above, it's my opinion this is a vendor based decision for >> how to configure rsyslog/systemd-networkd-wait-online. > > I agree we shouldn't enable this globally, but that doesn't mean we can't add > a simple PKGCONFIG that allows it to be enabled/disabled as needed. That way > we only have the single `PKGCONFIG:append` line in vendor layers and vendors > that have a problem with it can leave it same as upstream. I am also in favor of this solution, let the vendor decide whether rsyslog depends on network-online.target or not with the PKGCONFIG option.