On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote:
> This is indeed a shortcoming in systemd's model right now: we don't > permit a start and a stop job to be enqueued for the same unit at the > same time. But to do what you want to do we'd need to permit that: the > service is supposed to stop, but also temporarily start. AFAIU, this is not exactly the case Stanislav is talking about. He wants systemd to activate instance of a service during shutdown while stop job is already enqueued for respective socket unit (which is different unit). At that time there can't be any stop job enqueued for service instance since that isn't running yet. Hence there is no conflict between start and stop jobs. *But* this is only true when we talk about the service instance itself. That instance can have dependencies that are already running and are scheduled to be stopped, and here we have the problem that Lennart is talking about. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
