Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Mon, 18.02.13 11:52, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:32:46AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck > > > > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for > > > > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future? > > > > > > This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion > > > that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck. checkers. > > > > > > Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places. > > I did small investigation and result: > > extN: -a -y > > reaiser: -a -y > > vfat: -a -y > > minix: -a > > cramfs: I'm going to improve fsck.cramfs to accept -a and -y > > xfs: fsck.xfs is dummy shell script, does nothing, accepts everything:-) > > btrfs: has --repair, it seems like synonym for -a (I'll ask for more > details at btrfs lists) > > ntfs (-3g): does not support options at all Definitely sounds like the best to stick to "-a" then in systemd's fsck invoking tool... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:52:31AM +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:32:46AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck > > > > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for > > > > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future? > > > > > > This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion > > > that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck. checkers. > > > > > > Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places. > > I did small investigation and result: > > extN: -a -y > > reaiser: -a -y > > vfat: -a -y > > minix: -a > > cramfs: I'm going to improve fsck.cramfs to accept -a and -y > > xfs: fsck.xfs is dummy shell script, does nothing, accepts everything:-) > > btrfs: has --repair, it seems like synonym for -a (I'll ask for more > details at btrfs lists) update (after git clone): fsck.btrfs accepts and silently ignores -a Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:32:46AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck > > > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for > > > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future? > > > > This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion > > that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck. checkers. > > > > Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places. I did small investigation and result: extN: -a -y reaiser: -a -y vfat: -a -y minix: -a cramfs: I'm going to improve fsck.cramfs to accept -a and -y xfs: fsck.xfs is dummy shell script, does nothing, accepts everything:-) btrfs: has --repair, it seems like synonym for -a (I'll ask for more details at btrfs lists) ntfs (-3g): does not support options at all Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:32:46AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 11.02.13 09:46, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:38:55AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/src/fsck/fsck.c b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > index 058f34d..b1938c7 100644
> > > > --- a/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > +++ b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > @@ -321,9 +321,10 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > cmdline[i++] = "/sbin/fsck";
> > > > -cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> > > > +//cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> > > > cmdline[i++] = "-T";
> > > > cmdline[i++] = "-l";
> > > > +cmdline[i++] = "-y";
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck
> > > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for
> > > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future?
> >
> > This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion
> > that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck. checkers.
> >
> > Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places.
>
> Do you happen to know whether -a and -y are equivalent in the more
> common fsck implementations, modulo the RTC issue this thread was
> initially about?
If I know than -y is fsck.extN specific.
The ideal solution would be to standardize such options (or at least
-a) and inform FS developers that the option will be required. I'll
try to talk with the developers next week. I guess that extN, xfs,
btrfs and vfat is enough for now. (I maintain fsck.cramfs and fsck.minix.)
Karel
--
Karel Zak
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Mon, 11.02.13 09:46, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:38:55AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > diff --git a/src/fsck/fsck.c b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > > index 058f34d..b1938c7 100644
> > > --- a/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > > +++ b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > > @@ -321,9 +321,10 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> > > }
> > >
> > > cmdline[i++] = "/sbin/fsck";
> > > -cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> > > +//cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> > > cmdline[i++] = "-T";
> > > cmdline[i++] = "-l";
> > > +cmdline[i++] = "-y";
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck
> > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for
> > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future?
>
> This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion
> that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck. checkers.
>
> Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places.
Do you happen to know whether -a and -y are equivalent in the more
common fsck implementations, modulo the RTC issue this thread was
initially about?
If they are equivalent, then I think we should probably stick to -a.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:38:55AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/fsck/fsck.c b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > index 058f34d..b1938c7 100644
> > --- a/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > +++ b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> > @@ -321,9 +321,10 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> > }
> >
> > cmdline[i++] = "/sbin/fsck";
> > -cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> > +//cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> > cmdline[i++] = "-T";
> > cmdline[i++] = "-l";
> > +cmdline[i++] = "-y";
> >
>
> Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck
> maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for
> automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future?
This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion
that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck. checkers.
Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places.
Karel
--
Karel Zak
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
'Twas brillig, and Kay Sievers at 08/02/13 11:21 did gyre and gimble: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote: >> 'Twas brillig, and Kok, Auke-jan H at 08/02/13 08:04 did gyre and gimble: >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Lennart Poettering >>> wrote: On Thu, 07.02.13 16:57, Bryan Duff (bd...@ecessa.com) wrote: > Would it be possible to add this as some kind of option to systemd-fsck? > > In my case there was a situation where ext3 would not mount because > of a timestamp issue that would not be fixed with "-a". Every sane distro patches the timestamp check nonsense out of e2fsck. Assuming the RTC was always correct is just so misguided, it hurts... >>> >>> ACK, sadly, I've applied this patch too several times... >> >> By "patches" here I think all we did was ship a /etc/e2fsck.conf with: >> >> [options] >> # This will prevent e2fsck from stopping boot just because the clock is >> wrong >> broken_system_clock = 1 >> >> in it. I don't think there is much else needed (please correct me if I'm >> wrong!). > > Right. Don't forget to put it into the initramfs, if needed. Yup, dracut copies if it's present already, but make sure to modify any other initramfs generator if it doesn't do that. > Well, there will be btrfs ... :) One day... :) Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Kok, Auke-jan H at 08/02/13 08:04 did gyre and gimble: >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Lennart Poettering >> wrote: >>> On Thu, 07.02.13 16:57, Bryan Duff (bd...@ecessa.com) wrote: >>> Would it be possible to add this as some kind of option to systemd-fsck? In my case there was a situation where ext3 would not mount because of a timestamp issue that would not be fixed with "-a". >>> >>> Every sane distro patches the timestamp check nonsense out of >>> e2fsck. Assuming the RTC was always correct is just so misguided, it >>> hurts... >> >> ACK, sadly, I've applied this patch too several times... > > By "patches" here I think all we did was ship a /etc/e2fsck.conf with: > > [options] > # This will prevent e2fsck from stopping boot just because the clock is > wrong > broken_system_clock = 1 > > in it. I don't think there is much else needed (please correct me if I'm > wrong!). Right. Don't forget to put it into the initramfs, if needed. The whole thing is still a pointless and broken feature. It's the wrong default, if the feature is ever useful for anybody. There are systems without any clock, and a file system checker to make assumptions about the system time, makes zero sense; setups without a clock are just fine. Well, there will be btrfs ... :) Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
'Twas brillig, and Kok, Auke-jan H at 08/02/13 08:04 did gyre and gimble: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Lennart Poettering > wrote: >> On Thu, 07.02.13 16:57, Bryan Duff (bd...@ecessa.com) wrote: >> >>> Would it be possible to add this as some kind of option to systemd-fsck? >>> >>> In my case there was a situation where ext3 would not mount because >>> of a timestamp issue that would not be fixed with "-a". >> >> Every sane distro patches the timestamp check nonsense out of >> e2fsck. Assuming the RTC was always correct is just so misguided, it >> hurts... > > ACK, sadly, I've applied this patch too several times... By "patches" here I think all we did was ship a /etc/e2fsck.conf with: [options] # This will prevent e2fsck from stopping boot just because the clock is wrong broken_system_clock = 1 in it. I don't think there is much else needed (please correct me if I'm wrong!). Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 07.02.13 16:57, Bryan Duff (bd...@ecessa.com) wrote: > >> Would it be possible to add this as some kind of option to systemd-fsck? >> >> In my case there was a situation where ext3 would not mount because >> of a timestamp issue that would not be fixed with "-a". > > Every sane distro patches the timestamp check nonsense out of > e2fsck. Assuming the RTC was always correct is just so misguided, it > hurts... ACK, sadly, I've applied this patch too several times... >> -cmdline[i++] = "-a"; >> +//cmdline[i++] = "-a"; >> cmdline[i++] = "-T"; >> cmdline[i++] = "-l"; >> +cmdline[i++] = "-y"; >> > > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future? I'd certainly would appreciate knowing Karel's standpoint on this! Auke ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
On Thu, 07.02.13 16:57, Bryan Duff (bd...@ecessa.com) wrote:
> Would it be possible to add this as some kind of option to systemd-fsck?
>
> In my case there was a situation where ext3 would not mount because
> of a timestamp issue that would not be fixed with "-a".
Every sane distro patches the timestamp check nonsense out of
e2fsck. Assuming the RTC was always correct is just so misguided, it
hurts...
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Bryan
> diff --git a/src/fsck/fsck.c b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> index 058f34d..b1938c7 100644
> --- a/src/fsck/fsck.c
> +++ b/src/fsck/fsck.c
> @@ -321,9 +321,10 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> }
>
> cmdline[i++] = "/sbin/fsck";
> -cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> +//cmdline[i++] = "-a";
> cmdline[i++] = "-T";
> cmdline[i++] = "-l";
> +cmdline[i++] = "-y";
>
Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck
maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for
automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future?
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] systemd-fsck change fsck arguments to "-a" -> "-y"
Would it be possible to add this as some kind of option to systemd-fsck?
In my case there was a situation where ext3 would not mount because of a
timestamp issue that would not be fixed with "-a".
Thanks.
-Bryan
diff --git a/src/fsck/fsck.c b/src/fsck/fsck.c
index 058f34d..b1938c7 100644
--- a/src/fsck/fsck.c
+++ b/src/fsck/fsck.c
@@ -321,9 +321,10 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
}
cmdline[i++] = "/sbin/fsck";
-cmdline[i++] = "-a";
+//cmdline[i++] = "-a";
cmdline[i++] = "-T";
cmdline[i++] = "-l";
+cmdline[i++] = "-y";
if (!root_directory)
cmdline[i++] = "-M";
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
