[systemd-devel] Non-Stop Services in an Embedded Environment

[Spence, Richard (EXT-Other - DE/Ulm)]

Tobias et al.,

It turns out that ExecStopPost already provides the hook that we need to be able to handle all terminations with a common procedure. I had made a false assumption about the meaning of ExecStopPost but a closer reading of the manpage entry and a quick test corrected that.

Sorry to have bothered you all.

-R

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
> [mailto:tobias.geerinckx.rice at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:12 PM
> To: Spence, Richard (EXT-Other - DE/Ulm)
> Cc: systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] Non-Stop Services in an Embedded
> Environment
> 
> On 9 September 2014 14:38, Spence, Richard (EXT-Other - DE/Ulm)
> <richard.spence.ext at nsn.com> wrote:
> > we have an additional requirement for which we can find no clean
> (direct)
> > solution in systemd: applications in the system should not stop for
> any
> > reason – any termination must be handled as a failure.
> 
> So... you want *all* terminations to be listed as "failed" in
> systemctl (!0), even when the exit status is "success" (0).
> 
> At that point, you're just overloading the term "failure" to mean
> something it was never intended to mean. Therefore, any wrapper doing
> this is by definition a "[hack] that systemd is supposed to render
> unneccessary": systemd not helping you undermine reliable semantics
> natively is a *good* thing :-)
> 
> Assuming you can't patch the service(s) in question to return correct
> error codes, just be explicit and use an appropriately named/commented
> wrapper to tell systemd (and anyone using the system) that you're
> doing something substandard.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> T G-R