Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] tools: remove systemd xenstore socket definitions

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] tools: remove systemd 
xenstore socket definitions"):
> On 20/07/16 12:12, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > To be clear: I don't want to avoid systemd by any means. I just don't
> > want to have a complex and ugly solution with no gain just because
> > doing it the systemd way.
> 
> Given the introduction of this new choice, I agree that socket
> activation isn't sensible.  In the grand scheme of things it doesn't buy
> you much, as xenstored does not match the intended use for socket
> activation (on-demand launch of services when something tries to use its
> socket), as it is a start of day service that runs forever.

xenstore in its own domain is not a `new choice' which is being
`introduced'.  It has been supported by Xen upstream for a long time.
AFAICT from what Juergen is saying it seems that it was broken on
systemd systems by systemd-specific configuration.

> However, socket activation and sd_notify() are entirely orthogonal, and
> the removal of socket activation should not remove sd_notify().

I don't have a clear opinion opinion about this but it seems likely to
me that retaining some kind of systemd `ready now' call is desirable
or even necessary.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel