On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Mon, 30.09.13 01:34, Thomas Bächler (tho...@archlinux.org) wrote: > > I'd love to get rid of FsckPassNo=, but I fear that's not that > easy... After all it's not just a boolean, it actually influences the > ordering of the fsck. There traditionally were two documented phases > which you could use to serialize multiple fsck on the same HDD > but different partitions, but parallelize it on different HDDs. Now, > fsck since a while can determine all that automatically these days. But > still by using FsckPassNo= you get ordering deps automatically added. > > a) leave everything as is and FsckPassNo= does odering deps > > b) declare that manual passno configuration is stupid beyond treating it > as simple boolean. In thatc ase we should drop all references of > passno in the sources. Of course people might complain that we break > compat with UNIX, but well... > > c) Pimp up fstab-generator to write complete unit files for > fsck@.service that include the right dependencies. Meh. > > d) Pimp up fstab-generator to write only .d dropins that add the > necessary deps between the fsck instances, but nothing else. > > I think c) and a) suck. b) sounds like the best option to me. d) sounds > workable too. > > If we go for b) then I figure people might complain that fstab(5) is not > longer compatible with what systemd does?
b) is tempting. Given fsck's improved internal ordering handling, is there actually a usecase for ordering the fsck's? I can't think of any off the top of my head... -t _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel