Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bug 1885365: daemon: properly handle unit enable/disables #2145
Bug 1885365: daemon: properly handle unit enable/disables #2145
Changes from all commits
2f0fe99
b9e06c3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it'd probably be better to do a "diff" here - only enable/disable units that changed between the two configs.
Otherwise I worry that this may cause unexpected side effects.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So this doesn't change any existing behaviour. Today we re-write all enable/disables anyways (via the hardlink to multi-user.target.wants) just like how we re-write any file/unit again. I'm not sure if we want to make the exception
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, but I suspect part of the problem here is that going via
systemctl
may touch the DBus API doing a bunch of synchronous requests; that's going to slow things down.Another angle is to try
SYSTEMD_OFFLINE=1
in the environment?Of course if we implemented #1190 this issue would also go away because we'd only be enabling in the new root, so shouldn't be talking to the running systemd either.