Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44868 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754053AbbCSSUD (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:20:03 -0400 Message-ID: <550B1351.7080802@RedHat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:20:01 -0400 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Pitt , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org CC: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 0/2] some systemd unit changes References: <1425403690-23847-1-git-send-email-martin.pitt@ubuntu.com> In-Reply-To: <1425403690-23847-1-git-send-email-martin.pitt@ubuntu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/03/2015 12:28 PM, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello NFS developers, > > reposting the two patches inline as requested by Steve. > > I'm currently systemd-ifying our nfs-utils Ubuntu package. For testing I put > the NFS server and client (i. e. localhost:/foo/bar mounts) on the same > machine. With that I get long hangs during shutdown on stopping the NFS .mount > units, as when that happens the NFS server is already shut down. > > This is certainly a corner case as you'd usually not NFS-mount a share from > localhost; but fixing it is relatively simple with the first patch, which makes > sure that if NFS server and client are installed, the server starts before the > client, and the client stops before the server. > > For a client without installed server this is harmless as Before= does not > imply a dependency. Likewise, for an NFS server which does not mount shares by > itself, it's also a no-op as remote-fs.target is empty. This would only > slightly reorder the boot sequence for machines which both are an NFS server > and have some remote NFS mounts, but I don't see an issue with that. > > The second patch make NFS start earlier in the boot (i. e. before > basic.target), so that you can do things like put /var/ on NFS, or have rcS > SysV init scripts which depend on $remote_fs work. I tested this on both a > server and a client. This is certainly a bit more intrusive, but could be > worthwhile; what do you think? > > Thanks for considering, Committed.... steved. > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel >