On 12/02/2013 06:23 PM, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: > > >> On Dec 2, 2013, at 3:31 PM, "Dmytriyenko, Denys" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:15:45PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:27:06PM +0000, Cooper Jr., Franklin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Tom Rini [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rini, Tom >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:00 PM >>>>> To: Cooper Jr., Franklin >>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [meta-arago] [PATCH 5/6] mount-sdcard: Update to use new udev >>>>> entry >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:45:20AM -0600, Franklin S. Cooper Jr wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Patch 1c1b695310309ec3526f1b6b415c5e1b74a567e1 added a udev >>>>> entry to >>>>>> automatically mount sd card partition. >>>>>> * For some reason that udev entry isn't automatically ran. >>>>>> * As a workaround manually trigger udev to run twice (not sure why thats >>>>> needed) >>>>>> for the udev rule to run correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S. Cooper Jr <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> This issn't right. Have you added debugging steps to the mount.sh script? >>>>> We're saying, with this change "lets trigger all block devices 3 times", >>>>> and on the >>>>> 3rd attempt we finally do mount things. I've seen some partitions NOT be >>>>> auto- >>>>> mounted due to being dirty and needing an fsck prior to mounting them. >>>>> If we >>>>> need to do this type of change at the end as a "we can't figure out the >>>>> root >>>>> cause, but we need to release", OK. >>>>> But I don't think we're there yet. Thanks! >> >>>> [Franklin] Just to give an update it looks like fsck is required to be ran >>>> to fix this problem however it wouldn't be safe to run fsck and let it >>>> auto fix the problem since that could cause potential issues. So if fsck >>>> is really the proper solution then I'm not sure that would work for >>>> something that needs to automatically work at bootup. >>> >>> Well, dirty cards shouldn't be auto-mounted. Or there's some option to >>> mount we should be passing to say "no, it's OK". >> >> So, what is the agreement here? I don't think forcing fsck for mounting a >> card >> is a good idea. I agree with Tom that if the card is dirty (could be >> corrupted), >> then user intervention is required anyway. >> >> I'm planning on skipping these 2 patches, if nobody objects. > We need to figure this out but feel free to skip the patches.
Well, lets step back. Did we confirm that the problem is that it's dirty (in which case, trying to mount it N times should give N failures, not "3rd time is the charm!") or just that fsck'ing one particular card fixed that part of the card that wasn't mounting (but the rest of it was?) or what? -- Tom _______________________________________________ meta-arago mailing list [email protected] http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago
