On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:52:05AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:14 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Francis Moreau <francis.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > [...] > >>> > >> > >> But what if the slice fails to start ? > >> > >> Will the unit asking for a specific slice (which fails to start) be > >> moved into another slice ? It seems that whatever the final > >> destination used by systemd, the constraints used by the "fallback" > >> slice won't be correct, no ? > > > > Correct. > > > > You still get a big fat error on your screen and you should fix your > > setup. Again, if that's no suitable, you better use "Requires=". > > > > To put a unit in a slice, one uses by default > > Slice=myslice.slice > > and the default behaviour is to add Wants=myslice.slice to the unit. > > If the unit will always fail to start if myslice.slice fails then I > would say the default behaviour should be Requires=myslice.slice. Does it actually fail? If yes, then Requires= would be better. If not, then Wants= should stay.
(I tried to test this: - with a slice with ConditionPathExists= that is false, the slice is not started and the unit is started. - with a slice that has [Slice] Slice=<itself>, the unit is neither started nor errors out: Sep 22 08:09:27 yy systemd[1]: xxx.slice located outside its parent slice. Refusing. Sep 22 08:09:27 yy systemd[1]: Cannot add dependency job for unit xxx.slice, ignoring: Unit xxx.slice failed to load: Invalid argument. See system logs and 'systemctl status xxx.slice' for details. systemd becomes unresponsive... This looks like a bug. This was with systemd-219-23.fc22.x86_64, I'll test with something more modern later.) Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel