On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:12:56PM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
Hi, all
In a pure initramfs enviroment, I want to mount a filesystem and I put
an mount entry in /etc/fstab, so that fstab-generator could generate a
mount unit and systemd will mount it at some time.
I have a question about mount
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:38:59AM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
[..]
So with nofail opion for rootfs we should have following situation.
- sysroot.mount
Before=initrd-root-fs.target
- initrd-root-fs.target
Requires=sysroot.mount
OnFailure=emergency.target
-
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:36:13PM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
On 04/08/14 at 06:02pm, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 02:14:33AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
[..]
Defining a new target which by default waits for all the local fs
target
sounds
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 02:14:33AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
[..]
Defining a new target which by default waits for all the local fs target
sounds interesting. Again, I have the question, what will happen to
local-fs-all.target if some device does not show up and say
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 04:24:01AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 05:30:03PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:44:50PM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
In kdump kernel, we need mount certain file system, and we use nofail
for all mounts
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:07:20PM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
В Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:40:17 -0400
Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com пишет:
Defining a new target which by default waits for all the local fs target
sounds interesting. Again, I have the question, what will happen to
local
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:44:50PM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
In kdump kernel, we need mount certain file system, and we use nofail
for all mounts specified in /etc/fstab. Because we don't want any mount
failure to interrupt the boot process to arrive at
dracut-pre-pivot.service (This is the
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 03:18:11PM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
Currently we don't respect noauto/nofail root mount options (from
rootflags kernel cmdline). We should map these two flags to the
corresponding boolean variable noauto and nofail when calling
add_mount().
Signed-off-by: WANG Chao
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 12:15:32PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2013-07-30 20:41, Vivek Goyal wrote:
FYI, I don't see any CC's on the original mail as displayed on GMane via
NNTP...
Neither do I, with a normal (non-NTTP, non-Gmail) setup.
I am CCed in original mail
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19:06PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 07/30/2013 09:14 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:46:22AM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
On 07/31/13 at 12:32am, WANG Chao wrote:
On 07/30/13 at 03:46pm, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:44:01AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19:06PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 07/30/2013 09:14 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:46:22AM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
On 07/31/13 at 12:32am, WANG Chao wrote:
On 07/30/13 at 03
[CC harald]
Not sure if this is right way to do or not but I will give more
background about the issue.
This assumption seems to be built into initramfs and systemd that root
should always be mountable. If one can't mount root, it is a fatal
failure.
But in case of kdump initramfs, this
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:05:08PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, WANG Chao chaow...@redhat.com wrote:
If specified kernel command line rd.weak_sysroot, fstab-generate will
generate a weaker version of sysroot.mount:
- It's not required by
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:02:17PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:27 PM, WANG Chao chaow...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/30/13 at 02:05pm, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, WANG Chao chaow...@redhat.com wrote:
- It's not before initrd-root-fs.target.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:34:01PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Vivek Goyal at 30/07/13 15:26 did gyre and gimble:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:05:08PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM, WANG Chao chaow...@redhat.com wrote:
If specified kernel
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:46:22AM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
On 07/31/13 at 12:32am, WANG Chao wrote:
On 07/30/13 at 03:46pm, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:43:16AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
[CC harald]
Not sure if this is right way to do
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:32:30PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 31.10.11 14:43, Jan Safranek (jsafr...@redhat.com) wrote:
Even if there is, then it looks like systemd is better place to manage
it as it already is setting up the whole system and top level
hierarchies.
Hi,
We have talked a lot of about libcgroup and systemd in the past and when I
thought that debate is settled, here comes some more things to discuss.
Previously libcg was doing cgroup management and now sytemd is taken over
a lot of it.
- Creation of hierarchies. Taking control of hierarchies
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 04:45:59PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
Hi,
Oops, got old addresses of dhaval and bablir. Fixing it. Please reply
to this mail instead of previous one.
Thanks
Vivek
We have talked a lot of about libcgroup and systemd in the past and when I
thought that debate
19 matches
Mail list logo
