mirror of
https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable.git
synced 2025-02-12 21:57:27 +03:00
Merge pull request #13440 from keszybz/failing-condtion-check
Revert "core: check start limit on condition checks too"
This commit is contained in:
commit
74e6a78221
@ -1751,7 +1751,6 @@ static bool unit_verify_deps(Unit *u) {
|
||||
int unit_start(Unit *u) {
|
||||
UnitActiveState state;
|
||||
Unit *following;
|
||||
int r;
|
||||
|
||||
assert(u);
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1776,25 +1775,8 @@ int unit_start(Unit *u) {
|
||||
* still be useful to speed up activation in case there is some hold-off time, but we don't want to
|
||||
* recheck the condition in that case. */
|
||||
if (state != UNIT_ACTIVATING &&
|
||||
!unit_test_condition(u)) {
|
||||
|
||||
/* Let's also check the start limit here. Normally, the start limit is only checked by the
|
||||
* .start() method of the unit type after it did some additional checks verifying everything
|
||||
* is in order (so that those other checks can propagate errors properly). However, if a
|
||||
* condition check doesn't hold we don't get that far but we should still ensure we are not
|
||||
* called in a tight loop without a rate limit check enforced, hence do the check here. Note
|
||||
* that ECOMM is generally not a reason for a job to fail, unlike most other errors here,
|
||||
* hence the chance is big that any triggering unit for us will trigger us again. Note this
|
||||
* condition check is a bit different from the condition check inside the per-unit .start()
|
||||
* function, as this one will not change the unit's state in any way (and we shouldn't here,
|
||||
* after all the condition failed). */
|
||||
|
||||
r = unit_test_start_limit(u);
|
||||
if (r < 0)
|
||||
return r;
|
||||
|
||||
!unit_test_condition(u))
|
||||
return log_unit_debug_errno(u, SYNTHETIC_ERRNO(ECOMM), "Starting requested but condition failed. Not starting unit.");
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* If the asserts failed, fail the entire job */
|
||||
if (state != UNIT_ACTIVATING &&
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user