On 11/26/2013 04:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:40:49 -0700 as excerpted:
Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful of
threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like fsck.xfs
does, but then also the idea that /etc/fstab should correctly set
fs_passno to 0 instead of such trickery.
I ask due to systemd-fstab-generator seemingly getting the idea from
Fedora 20's default /etc/fstab that btrfs should have its file system
checked, and during offline updates, systemd tries to do this, doesn't
find /sbin/fsck.btrfs, and then has several dozen fits.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034563
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862871
So the question, is there supposed to be (one day) a faux
/sbin/fsck.btrfs? Or should things always check /etc/fstab fs_passno and
honor the fact there is really no such thing?
Just symlink/copy fsck.btrfs to (/bin/)true.
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#What.27s_the_difference_between_btrfsck_and_fsck.btrfs
Or just do the /etc/fstab fs_passno = 0 thing, which is what I did with
reiserfs, so no change in that regard here when I switched to btrfs
for most partitions.
But I'm on gentoo and haven't opted to drink the systemd koolaid yet,
so what it thinks about that I wouldn't know.
I think it is better to symlink to true, because otherwise mkinitramfs
in the default configuration will be complaining about the missing hook
(can be ignored of course)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
