[systemd-devel] Why do passive target units have to exist?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mi, 25.10.17 04:52, 林自均 (johnlinp at gmail.com) wrote:

> Hi Lennart,
> 
> Yes, it makes sense to me. Thank you for your explanation.
> 
> However, I still have a question about it. If the general goal is to
> minimize synchronization points, why don't we convert more active targets
> into passive targets? For example: not all machines have swap, so can the
> swap.target be a passive target to avoid unnecessary sync point? I guess
> there must be a reason not to do so, but I don't know what it is.

Well, targets are not just sync points, they are also ways how to
group things. swap.target is a way to pull in all swap devices,
local-fs.target a way to pull in all local file systems and so on.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat