On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 07:14:36PM +0000, Jim Fehlig wrote:
On 7/29/19 8:18 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 13:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:01:52PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>>> Again IIUC there's nothing really stopping us from generating
>>> virtqemud*.service from libvirtd*.service.in, or at least from
>>> a common virtd*.service.in, since eg. virtqemud.service.in and
>>> virtlxcd.service.in are basically identical - it's just that you
>>> haven't unified the generation rules yet.
>>
>> I'm was not anticipating sharing the service.in file, as many of
>> the parameters will be driver specific.
>
> It doesn't look to me like there's much more that's driver-specific
> in the .service files than there is in the .socket files, and we're
> generating the latter from a single template.
I have a downstream patch that adds
After=xencommons.service
Conflicts=xendomains.service
to libvirtd.service.in. IMO the patch needs to be improved before pushing
upstream, e.g. conditionally adding those lines at build time when the xen
driver is selected. With driver-specific service files we can trivially add
those to virtxend.service.
Sure, go ahead & send that for libvirtd.service.in Meanwhile, I'll add them
to virtxend.sevice in my patch series right now.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|