On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 03:00:41PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 29/06/16 14:52, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 29/06/16 13:44, Juergen Gross wrote: > >> @@ -2068,13 +1964,6 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > >> /* Tell the kernel we're up and running. */ > >> xenbus_notify_running(); > >> > >> -#if defined(XEN_SYSTEMD_ENABLED) > >> - if (systemd) { > >> - sd_notify(1, "READY=1"); > >> - fprintf(stderr, SD_NOTICE "xenstored is ready\n"); > >> - } > >> -#endif > > > > Getting rid of the socket configuration for systemd is ok, but we should > > keep the sd_notify() calls for when the daemon is started by systemd. > > > > Socket activiation and sd_notify() are orthogonal, and sd_notify() is > > still required if we don't want systemd to treat xenstored as a legacy > > unix daemon. > > So what is the downside of xenstored being treated as a legacy daemon? > This question is especially interesting for the case of patch 2 being > considered: xenstored is no longer started by systemd, but by a wrapper > script which might decide to start the xenstore domain instead. > > Another problem: today xenstored decides whether to call sd_notify() > by testing the xenstore sockets being specified via systemd. This will > no longer work. So how to do it now? >
Not sure I follow. See 81d758afca7c3c1e3ccbd78154b33d64fd7757fb. I expect systemd_checkin to be able to tell if cxenstored is started by systemd or not. sd_listen_fds doesn't seem to involve testing xenstore sockets. Do I miss anything? Wei. > > Juergen > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel