ee560ada81
Resolves: RHEL-100553,RHEL-103354,RHEL-104555,RHEL-106260,RHEL-44419,RHEL-72701,RHEL-79976,RHEL-97625,RHEL-97762
74 lines
3.1 KiB
Diff
74 lines
3.1 KiB
Diff
From 36fceffc4931e58a139f67b0c49ae07ff9c93c19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
|
|
From: Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net>
|
|
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:15:49 +0200
|
|
Subject: [PATCH] catalog: add entries for the order cycle log messages
|
|
|
|
Fixes: #35642
|
|
(cherry picked from commit e4003f2d9cb93d09d99b87a3d2f68cb0889ecbe8)
|
|
|
|
Related: RHEL-106260
|
|
---
|
|
catalog/systemd.catalog.in | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
|
|
|
|
diff --git a/catalog/systemd.catalog.in b/catalog/systemd.catalog.in
|
|
index ef6fb49ae5..decd1d7f03 100644
|
|
--- a/catalog/systemd.catalog.in
|
|
+++ b/catalog/systemd.catalog.in
|
|
@@ -806,3 +806,55 @@ systemd-networkd, has been changed by another, unrelated process
|
|
and will likely result in problems later on.
|
|
|
|
Value changed to "@NEWVALUE@", which should be "@OURVALUE@".
|
|
+
|
|
+-- f27a3f94406a4783b946a9bc849e9452
|
|
+Subject: Unit ordering cycle found
|
|
+Defined-By: systemd
|
|
+Support: %SUPPORT_URL%
|
|
+Documentation: man:systemd(1)
|
|
+
|
|
+A unit transaction was initiated that contains an ordering cycle, i.e. some
|
|
+unit that was requested to be started (either directly, or indirectly due to a
|
|
+requirement dependency such as Wants= or Requires=) is ordered before some
|
|
+other unit (via After=/Before=), but that latter unit is also ordered before
|
|
+the former by some dependency (either directly or indirectly).
|
|
+
|
|
+Ordering cycles consist of at least two units, but might involve many
|
|
+more. They generally indicate a bug in the unit definitions, as a unit
|
|
+conceptually cannot be run both before and after some other unit, it must be
|
|
+strictly ordered either before or after.
|
|
+
|
|
+The ordering cycle is shown in the log message. An attempt will be made to
|
|
+remove unit jobs from the transaction in order to make the transaction succeed
|
|
+at least partially. Note that such cycle breaking is not going to correct the
|
|
+issue, it is just an attempt to make the outcome less problematic.
|
|
+
|
|
+The correct fix is to analyze the cycle in question and then break the cycle at
|
|
+the right place by removing the right After= or Before= lines from one or more
|
|
+of the involved unit files.
|
|
+
|
|
+-- 5084367542f7472dbc6a94125d5debce
|
|
+Subject: Unit job deleted due to an ordering cycle
|
|
+Defined-By: systemd
|
|
+Support: %SUPPORT_URL%
|
|
+Documentation: man:systemd(1)
|
|
+
|
|
+In order to address an ordering cycle between units that have been added to a
|
|
+transaction a job has been removed from the transaction.
|
|
+
|
|
+The removed job is '@DELETED_TYPE@' for unit @DELETED_UNIT@.
|
|
+
|
|
+The removal of the job is done in order to minimize the negative effect of an
|
|
+ordering cycle — it is not going to fix the underlying problem, which is a bug
|
|
+in the involved unit files. The deleted job might be fundamental for the other
|
|
+units in the transaction to operate, which hence might fail.
|
|
+
|
|
+-- b3112ddad19045538c76685ba5918a80
|
|
+Subject: Unable to break ordering cycle between units
|
|
+Defined-By: systemd
|
|
+Support: %SUPPORT_URL%
|
|
+Documentation: man:systemd(1)
|
|
+
|
|
+It has been attempted to break an ordering cycle between units for which jobs
|
|
+have been enqueued as part of a transaction, but this was not successful. The
|
|
+transaction will fail.
|