From: Steve Dickson <SteveD@RedHat.com>
To: Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi>,
Linux NFS Mailing list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Systemd Mailing List <systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] rpcbind.service: Not pulling the rpcbind.target
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:20:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3388e642-9e5d-dd82-9025-86101d6599c1@RedHat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1513277230.24220.58.camel@pp1.inet.fi>
On 12/14/2017 01:47 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 13:24 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>
>> On 12/14/2017 12:48 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 12:05 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>>> +Wants=rpcbind.socket rpcbind.target
>>>> +After=rpcbind.socket rpcbind.target
>>>
>>> Is this needed when the service has socket activation support? If the
>>> only interaction with it is through the socket, it shouldn't matter
>>> even if the service is not actually up yet - clients can already open
>>> connections to the socket regardless.
>>
>> Well things are working as is... but this man page paragraph
>> was pointed out to me so I though these Wants and After were needed.
>>
>> So you saying this patch is not needed?
>
> I'm not familiar enough with rpcbind stuff to say with certainty that
> it wouldn't be needed, but at least it seems plausible to me that it
> would not be. The mechanism described on the man page is a way to
> implement ordering if needed, but if the early availability of the
> socket means ordering is never an issue, then it can be ignored.
>
>
>>> And regardless, that "After" for rpcbind.target seems backwards.
>>> Shouldn't it be "Before", so that the target being up signals that the
>>> service has already been started?
>>
>> I think this makes sense... So if the patch is needed I'll add
>> Before=rpcbind.target and remove the target from the After=
>
> Yes.
>
>>> Not directly related, but if that comment is accurate and the socket
>>> should be used "no matter what", perhaps that should be "Requires"
>>> instead of "Wants" so that if the socket could not be opened for some
>>> reason, the service fails instead of starting without socket
>>> activation?
>>>
>>
>> I was afraid of opening a can a worms here... :-)
>>
>> So you are saying Wants and After should be changed to
>>
>> Requires=rpcbind.socket
>> Before=rpcbind.target
>
> Depends on the exact semantics you want. "Wants" means that systemd
> will try to start the socket if the service is started, but will
> continue with the service start even if the dependency fails.
> "Requires" guarantees that the service will never be started without
> the socket active - if opening the socket fails, then the service start
> will return failure too. If you know that the socket unit should always
> be used, or the service will either fail or do the wrong thing without
> it (such as open a socket with parameters different from what was
> configured for the socket unit, and which the admin didn't expect) then
> Requires may be more appropriate.
I think I agree with you... thanks!
steved.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-14 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-14 17:05 [PATCH] rpcbind.service: Not pulling the rpcbind.target Steve Dickson
2017-12-14 17:48 ` [systemd-devel] " Uoti Urpala
2017-12-14 18:24 ` Steve Dickson
2017-12-14 18:47 ` Uoti Urpala
2017-12-14 20:20 ` Steve Dickson [this message]
2017-12-14 18:05 ` Lennart Poettering
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3388e642-9e5d-dd82-9025-86101d6599c1@RedHat.com \
--to=steved@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox