* Target name refactoring @ 2017-02-20 22:20 Andrew Geissler 2017-02-22 3:00 ` Joel Stanley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Andrew Geissler @ 2017-02-20 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: OpenBMC Maillist Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. Currently we have this: - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target obmc-stop-host.target The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is required to apply pgood to the chassis. The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping all host related services The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) Refactoring Proposal: - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s so: - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to obmc-shutdown-host.target The target relationships are then the following: obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires obmc-power-chassis-off.target When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. Thoughts/Comments? Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-20 22:20 Target name refactoring Andrew Geissler @ 2017-02-22 3:00 ` Joel Stanley 2017-02-24 4:05 ` Andrew Geissler 2017-02-24 13:59 ` Brad Bishop 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Joel Stanley @ 2017-02-22 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Geissler; +Cc: OpenBMC Maillist On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote: > Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the > OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets > responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. > > Currently we have this: > - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target > - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target > obmc-stop-host.target > > The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is > required to apply pgood to the chassis. > The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping > all host related services > The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service > (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) > > Refactoring Proposal: > - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make > sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s > so: > - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target > - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target > - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to obmc-shutdown-host.target Can I suggest putting the host before the action? obmc-host-stop obmc-host-start obmc-host-shutdown > > The target relationships are then the following: > > obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target > obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires > obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires obmc-chassis-poweroff I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. Cheers, Joel > > When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will > call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service > will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. > > Thoughts/Comments? > Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-22 3:00 ` Joel Stanley @ 2017-02-24 4:05 ` Andrew Geissler 2017-02-24 5:20 ` Andrew Jeffery 2017-02-24 13:59 ` Brad Bishop 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Andrew Geissler @ 2017-02-24 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Stanley; +Cc: OpenBMC Maillist On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote: >> Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the >> OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets >> responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. >> >> Currently we have this: >> - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target >> - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target >> obmc-stop-host.target >> >> The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is >> required to apply pgood to the chassis. >> The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping >> all host related services >> The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service >> (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) >> >> Refactoring Proposal: >> - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make >> sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s >> so: >> - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target >> - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target >> - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to obmc-shutdown-host.target > > Can I suggest putting the host before the action? > > obmc-host-stop > obmc-host-start > obmc-host-shutdown > I believe Brad has a naming convention he's shooting for where the verb comes second. I'm somewhat agnostic on this but we just want to be consistent. With your proposal I'd probably have to rename the chassis one's from obmc-power-chassis-on to obmc-chassis-power-on. Thoughts Brad? >> >> The target relationships are then the following: >> >> obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target >> obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires >> obmc-power-chassis-off.target > > obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron > > obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires obmc-chassis-poweroff > > I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. > > Cheers, > > Joel > >> >> When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will >> call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service >> will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. >> >> Thoughts/Comments? >> Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-24 4:05 ` Andrew Geissler @ 2017-02-24 5:20 ` Andrew Jeffery 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Andrew Jeffery @ 2017-02-24 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Geissler, Joel Stanley; +Cc: OpenBMC Maillist [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2835 bytes --] On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 22:05 -0600, Andrew Geissler wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the > > > OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets > > > responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. > > > > > > Currently we have this: > > > - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target > > > - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target > > > obmc-stop-host.target > > > > > > The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is > > > required to apply pgood to the chassis. > > > The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping > > > all host related services > > > The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service > > > (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) > > > > > > Refactoring Proposal: > > > - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make > > > sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s > > > so: > > > - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target > > > - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target > > > - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to obmc-shutdown-host.target > > > > Can I suggest putting the host before the action? > > > > obmc-host-stop > > obmc-host-start > > obmc-host-shutdown > > > > I believe Brad has a naming convention he's shooting for where the > verb comes second. I'm somewhat agnostic on this but we just want to > be consistent. With your proposal I'd probably have to rename the > chassis one's from obmc-power-chassis-on to obmc-chassis-power-on. > > Thoughts Brad? Whatever the case, ack from me on your general proposal, so long as the names are consistent. Andrew > > > > > > > The target relationships are then the following: > > > > > > obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target > > > obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires > > > obmc-power-chassis-off.target > > > > obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron > > > > obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires obmc-chassis-poweroff > > > > I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joel > > > > > > > > When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will > > > call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service > > > will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. > > > > > > Thoughts/Comments? > > > Andrew [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-22 3:00 ` Joel Stanley 2017-02-24 4:05 ` Andrew Geissler @ 2017-02-24 13:59 ` Brad Bishop 2017-02-24 16:41 ` Rick Altherr 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Brad Bishop @ 2017-02-24 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Stanley; +Cc: Andrew Geissler, OpenBMC Maillist > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:00 PM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote: >> Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the >> OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets >> responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. >> >> Currently we have this: >> - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target >> - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target >> obmc-stop-host.target >> >> The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is >> required to apply pgood to the chassis. >> The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping >> all host related services >> The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service >> (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) >> >> Refactoring Proposal: >> - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make >> sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s >> so: >> - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target >> - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target >> - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to obmc-shutdown-host.target > > Can I suggest putting the host before the action? > > obmc-host-stop > obmc-host-start > obmc-host-shutdown We have two types of targets, synchronization targets (for example network-pre.target), and action targets(for example multi-user.target). Sync targets are not directly start/stoppable - they have to be started implicitly by systemd. I would like a way to be able to tell which one I am looking at from the name. For example: obmc-stop-host # Action - stop the host. obmc-host-stop # Sync - the host has been stopped. I had proposed this obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions and obmc-[what]-[state] to Andrew privately..I’m fine with something else, again, as long as it is consistent. I can think of two conventions: obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points or obmc-[what]-[verb] for actions obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points Either one is fine with me. The former seems slightly easier to distinguish between the two. > >> >> The target relationships are then the following: >> >> obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target >> obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires >> obmc-power-chassis-off.target > > obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron > > obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires obmc-chassis-poweroff > > I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. > > Cheers, > > Joel > >> >> When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will >> call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service >> will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. >> >> Thoughts/Comments? >> Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-24 13:59 ` Brad Bishop @ 2017-02-24 16:41 ` Rick Altherr 2017-02-24 18:24 ` Brad Bishop 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rick Altherr @ 2017-02-24 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brad Bishop; +Cc: Joel Stanley, OpenBMC Maillist [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3354 bytes --] nit: stop is a verb. Stopped is a state. On Feb 24, 2017 5:59 AM, "Brad Bishop" <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:00 PM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the > >> OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets > >> responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. > >> > >> Currently we have this: > >> - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target > >> - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target > >> obmc-stop-host.target > >> > >> The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is > >> required to apply pgood to the chassis. > >> The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping > >> all host related services > >> The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service > >> (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) > >> > >> Refactoring Proposal: > >> - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make > >> sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s > >> so: > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target > >> - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to obmc-shutdown-host.target > > > > Can I suggest putting the host before the action? > > > > obmc-host-stop > > obmc-host-start > > obmc-host-shutdown > > We have two types of targets, synchronization targets (for example > network-pre.target), > and action targets(for example multi-user.target). Sync targets are not > directly > start/stoppable - they have to be started implicitly by systemd. I would > like a way > to be able to tell which one I am looking at from the name. For example: > > obmc-stop-host # Action - stop the host. > obmc-host-stop # Sync - the host has been stopped. > > I had proposed this obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions and obmc-[what]-[state] > to Andrew > privately..I’m fine with something else, again, as long as it is > consistent. > > I can think of two conventions: > > obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points > > or > > obmc-[what]-[verb] for actions > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points > > Either one is fine with me. The former seems slightly easier to > distinguish between > the two. > > > > >> > >> The target relationships are then the following: > >> > >> obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target > >> obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires > >> obmc-power-chassis-off.target > > > > obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron > > > > obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires obmc-chassis-poweroff > > > > I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joel > > > >> > >> When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will > >> call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service > >> will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. > >> > >> Thoughts/Comments? > >> Andrew > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4175 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-24 16:41 ` Rick Altherr @ 2017-02-24 18:24 ` Brad Bishop 2017-02-24 21:31 ` Rick Altherr 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Brad Bishop @ 2017-02-24 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rick Altherr; +Cc: OpenBMC Maillist > On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Rick Altherr <raltherr@google.com> wrote: > > nit: stop is a verb. Stopped is a state. Right. So using one of the conventions below we’d have either: obmc-stop-host obmc-host-stopped or obmc-host-stop obmc-host-stopped I’m guessing the first person to reply with a preference will probably win. > > On Feb 24, 2017 5:59 AM, "Brad Bishop" <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:00 PM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the > >> OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets > >> responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. > >> > >> Currently we have this: > >> - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target > >> - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target > >> obmc-stop-host.target > >> > >> The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is > >> required to apply pgood to the chassis. > >> The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping > >> all host related services > >> The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service > >> (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) > >> > >> Refactoring Proposal: > >> - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make > >> sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s > >> so: > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target > >> - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to obmc-shutdown-host.target > > > > Can I suggest putting the host before the action? > > > > obmc-host-stop > > obmc-host-start > > obmc-host-shutdown > > We have two types of targets, synchronization targets (for example network-pre.target), > and action targets(for example multi-user.target). Sync targets are not directly > start/stoppable - they have to be started implicitly by systemd. I would like a way > to be able to tell which one I am looking at from the name. For example: > > obmc-stop-host # Action - stop the host. > obmc-host-stop # Sync - the host has been stopped. > > I had proposed this obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions and obmc-[what]-[state] to Andrew > privately..I’m fine with something else, again, as long as it is consistent. > > I can think of two conventions: > > obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points > > or > > obmc-[what]-[verb] for actions > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points > > Either one is fine with me. The former seems slightly easier to distinguish between > the two. > > > > >> > >> The target relationships are then the following: > >> > >> obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target > >> obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires > >> obmc-power-chassis-off.target > > > > obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron > > > > obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires obmc-chassis-poweroff > > > > I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joel > > > >> > >> When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will > >> call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service > >> will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. > >> > >> Thoughts/Comments? > >> Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-24 18:24 ` Brad Bishop @ 2017-02-24 21:31 ` Rick Altherr 2017-02-24 22:41 ` Andrew Geissler 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rick Altherr @ 2017-02-24 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brad Bishop; +Cc: OpenBMC Maillist [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3987 bytes --] I prefer the second. On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Rick Altherr <raltherr@google.com> wrote: > > > > nit: stop is a verb. Stopped is a state. > > Right. So using one of the conventions below we’d have either: > > obmc-stop-host > obmc-host-stopped > > or > > obmc-host-stop > obmc-host-stopped > > I’m guessing the first person to reply with a preference will probably win. > > > > > On Feb 24, 2017 5:59 AM, "Brad Bishop" <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:00 PM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler < > geissonator@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the > > >> OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets > > >> responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. > > >> > > >> Currently we have this: > > >> - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target > > >> - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target > > >> obmc-stop-host.target > > >> > > >> The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever is > > >> required to apply pgood to the chassis. > > >> The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping > > >> all host related services > > >> The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service > > >> (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) > > >> > > >> Refactoring Proposal: > > >> - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make > > >> sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s > > >> so: > > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target > > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target > > >> - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to > obmc-shutdown-host.target > > > > > > Can I suggest putting the host before the action? > > > > > > obmc-host-stop > > > obmc-host-start > > > obmc-host-shutdown > > > > We have two types of targets, synchronization targets (for example > network-pre.target), > > and action targets(for example multi-user.target). Sync targets are not > directly > > start/stoppable - they have to be started implicitly by systemd. I > would like a way > > to be able to tell which one I am looking at from the name. For example: > > > > obmc-stop-host # Action - stop the host. > > obmc-host-stop # Sync - the host has been stopped. > > > > I had proposed this obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions and > obmc-[what]-[state] to Andrew > > privately..I’m fine with something else, again, as long as it is > consistent. > > > > I can think of two conventions: > > > > obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions > > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points > > > > or > > > > obmc-[what]-[verb] for actions > > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points > > > > Either one is fine with me. The former seems slightly easier to > distinguish between > > the two. > > > > > > > >> > > >> The target relationships are then the following: > > >> > > >> obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target > > >> obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires > > >> obmc-power-chassis-off.target > > > > > > obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron > > > > > > obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires > obmc-chassis-poweroff > > > > > > I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Joel > > > > > >> > > >> When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will > > >> call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service > > >> will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. > > >> > > >> Thoughts/Comments? > > >> Andrew > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5292 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Target name refactoring 2017-02-24 21:31 ` Rick Altherr @ 2017-02-24 22:41 ` Andrew Geissler 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Andrew Geissler @ 2017-02-24 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rick Altherr; +Cc: Brad Bishop, OpenBMC Maillist ok so refactored action targets and their relationships would look like this obmc-host-start -> Requires: obmc-chassis-power-on obmc-host-shutdown -> Requires: obmc-host-stop -> Requires: obmc-chassis-power-off The synch targets would follow similar conventions, I may break that into a separate task since the action targets are what users interact with and I'd like to get done ASAP. Andrew On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Rick Altherr <raltherr@google.com> wrote: > I prefer the second. > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> > wrote: >> >> >> > On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Rick Altherr <raltherr@google.com> wrote: >> > >> > nit: stop is a verb. Stopped is a state. >> >> Right. So using one of the conventions below we’d have either: >> >> obmc-stop-host >> obmc-host-stopped >> >> or >> >> obmc-host-stop >> obmc-host-stopped >> >> I’m guessing the first person to reply with a preference will probably >> win. >> >> > >> > On Feb 24, 2017 5:59 AM, "Brad Bishop" <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:00 PM, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Geissler >> > > <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> Some design decisions came out of my last set of changes in the >> > >> OpenBMC state area. There was a proposal to rename our targets >> > >> responsible for booting and powering on/off the system. >> > >> >> > >> Currently we have this: >> > >> - PowerOn: obmc-power-chassis-on.target obmc-chassis-start.target >> > >> - PowerOff: obmc-power-chassis-off.target obmc-chassis-stop.target >> > >> obmc-stop-host.target >> > >> >> > >> The obmc-power-chassis-*.targets are responsible for doing whatever >> > >> is >> > >> required to apply pgood to the chassis. >> > >> The obmc-chassis-*.targets are responsible for starting and stopping >> > >> all host related services >> > >> The obmc-stop-host.target is where we have the soft power off service >> > >> (notify host of shutdown, wait for host to shutdown gracefully) >> > >> >> > >> Refactoring Proposal: >> > >> - First the chassis-start and chassis-stop target names don’t make >> > >> sense anymore with the new bmc, chassis, and host state break down’s >> > >> so: >> > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-start.target to obmc-start-host.target >> > >> - Rename obmc-chassis-stop.target to obmc-stop-host.target >> > >> - Rename the current obmc-stop-host.target to >> > >> obmc-shutdown-host.target >> > > >> > > Can I suggest putting the host before the action? >> > > >> > > obmc-host-stop >> > > obmc-host-start >> > > obmc-host-shutdown >> > >> > We have two types of targets, synchronization targets (for example >> > network-pre.target), >> > and action targets(for example multi-user.target). Sync targets are not >> > directly >> > start/stoppable - they have to be started implicitly by systemd. I >> > would like a way >> > to be able to tell which one I am looking at from the name. For >> > example: >> > >> > obmc-stop-host # Action - stop the host. >> > obmc-host-stop # Sync - the host has been stopped. >> > >> > I had proposed this obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions and >> > obmc-[what]-[state] to Andrew >> > privately..I’m fine with something else, again, as long as it is >> > consistent. >> > >> > I can think of two conventions: >> > >> > obmc-[verb]-[what] for actions >> > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points >> > >> > or >> > >> > obmc-[what]-[verb] for actions >> > obmc-[what]-[state] for sync points >> > >> > Either one is fine with me. The former seems slightly easier to >> > distinguish between >> > the two. >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> The target relationships are then the following: >> > >> >> > >> obmc-host-start.target requires obmc-power-chassis-on.target >> > >> obmc-shutdown-host.target requires obmc-stop-host.target requires >> > >> obmc-power-chassis-off.target >> > > >> > > obmc-host-start requires obmc-chassis-poweron >> > > >> > > obmc-host-shutdown requires obmc-host-stop requires >> > > obmc-chassis-poweroff >> > > >> > > I think the rest of your proposal sounds good, from what I understand. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > >> > > Joel >> > > >> > >> >> > >> When a system goes to the quiesce target, the host state manager will >> > >> call the obmc-stop-host.target. Otherwise, the host state service >> > >> will call the obmc-shutdown-host.target when power off is requested. >> > >> >> > >> Thoughts/Comments? >> > >> Andrew > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-02-24 22:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-02-20 22:20 Target name refactoring Andrew Geissler 2017-02-22 3:00 ` Joel Stanley 2017-02-24 4:05 ` Andrew Geissler 2017-02-24 5:20 ` Andrew Jeffery 2017-02-24 13:59 ` Brad Bishop 2017-02-24 16:41 ` Rick Altherr 2017-02-24 18:24 ` Brad Bishop 2017-02-24 21:31 ` Rick Altherr 2017-02-24 22:41 ` Andrew Geissler
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.