On Thursday 21 August 2014 at 01:03:20, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 19.08.14 15:46, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > On Monday 18 August 2014 at 22:04:29, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if initramfs-only, ordering dependencies
On Thursday 21 August 2014 at 19:32:01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 21/08/14 19:12, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> > Actually, I don't pretty understand the reasoning behind skipping the
> > default
> > dependencies on /usr mount
>
> (Some of) the default dependencies require that /usr is mounted, so
On 21/08/14 19:12, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> Actually, I don't pretty understand the reasoning behind skipping the default
> dependencies on /usr mount
(Some of) the default dependencies require that /usr is mounted, so
mounting /usr cannot depend on them, to avoid a cycle.
(Or to put it the way r
On Thursday 21 August 2014 at 22:06:49, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2014 at 01:03:20, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > ...missing sysroot's fsck, as well as any other x-initrd mounts and
> > > > their fsck instances.
> > > >
> > > > Seems that sysroot
On Thursday 21 August 2014 at 01:03:20, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > ...missing sysroot's fsck, as well as any other x-initrd mounts and their
> > > fsck instances.
> > >
> > > Seems that sysroot.mount alone isn't sufficient.
> >
> > ...Anything on this?
> >
> > Should
On Tue, 19.08.14 15:46, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Monday 18 August 2014 at 22:04:29, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> > [..]
> > > >
> > > > Even if initramfs-only, ordering dependencies still need to be worked
> > > > out.
> > > > Inside of initramfs, neither systemd-fsck-roo
On Monday 18 August 2014 at 22:04:29, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> [..]
> > >
> > > Even if initramfs-only, ordering dependencies still need to be worked out.
> > > Inside of initramfs, neither systemd-fsck-root.service nor
> > > systemd-remount-fs.service
> > > do exist, so there's apparently no
On Monday 18 August 2014 at 18:40:59, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 18.08.14 18:00, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > On Monday 18 August 2014 at 15:57:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15.08.14 15:35, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >
> >
On Mon, 18.08.14 18:00, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Monday 18 August 2014 at 15:57:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Fri, 15.08.14 15:35, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > That should be enough. (You don't need to individually order the
> >
On Monday 18 August 2014 at 15:57:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 15.08.14 15:35, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > > That should be enough. (You don't need to individually order the
> > > systemd-fsck@.service instances for the other devices after your
> > > service, si
On Fri, 15.08.14 15:35, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > That should be enough. (You don't need to individually order the
> > systemd-fsck@.service instances for the other devices after your
> > service, since they are already ordered after systemd-fsck-root.service,
> > and you o
On Friday 15 August 2014 at 15:35:06, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Ah, right. This is actually correct here. We want to make sure that the
> > root fs is remounted before we mount the other units, since this might
> > required creating additional directories to mount things on...
> >
On Friday 15 August 2014 at 12:19:50, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> [...]
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to make this work both with initramfs and without one
> > > > (provided that
> > > > the rootfs has been mounted read-only by using 'ro' kernel cmdline
> > > > parameter).
> > > >
> > > > In this c
On Fri, 15.08.14 14:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Friday 15 August 2014 at 12:00:41, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > So is "Before=local-fs-pre.target" a sufficient ordering for such
> > > > > resume unit?
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, the r
On Friday 15 August 2014 at 12:00:41, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> [...]
> > > >
> > > > So is "Before=local-fs-pre.target" a sufficient ordering for such
> > > > resume unit?
> > > >
> > > > Again, the resume unit must be started before any filesystems are
> > > > (re)mounted
> > > > read-wri
On Fri, 15.08.14 13:54, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Friday 15 August 2014 at 11:32:59, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Fri, 15.08.14 13:02, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > Ah, well, if the resume= switch is supposed to simply carry the finished
On Friday 15 August 2014 at 11:32:59, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 15.08.14 13:02, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Ah, well, if the resume= switch is supposed to simply carry the finished
> device node path, and nothing we still have to translate into one, then
> of cours
On Fri, 15.08.14 13:02, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Ah, well, if the resume= switch is supposed to simply carry the finished
device node path, and nothing we still have to translate into one, then
of course the entire udev rules step is unnecessary, and you can just
write this ou
On Thursday 14 August 2014 at 12:56:10, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 14.08.14 09:20, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > The udev rule should be possible (provided that udevd does not need rootfs
> > remounted read-write -- I'd like to preserve some decency towards
>
On Thu, 14.08.14 09:20, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> The udev rule should be possible (provided that udevd does not need rootfs
> remounted read-write -- I'd like to preserve some decency towards initrd-less
> systems), but udev is a framework for handling events, whereas we don
On Thursday 14 August 2014 at 03:10:30, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 28.07.14 14:06, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm trying to implement resuming from hibernation with systemd-based
> > initramfs,
> > i. e. in terms of systemd unit files.
On Mon, 28.07.14 14:06, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm trying to implement resuming from hibernation with systemd-based
> initramfs,
> i. e. in terms of systemd unit files. That is, there should be a unit which
> waits for the resume device and writes its majo
Hello all,
I'm trying to implement resuming from hibernation with systemd-based initramfs,
i. e. in terms of systemd unit files. That is, there should be a unit which
waits for the resume device and writes its major:minor into /sys/power/resume.
I've chosen to write a templated resume@.service an
23 matches
Mail list logo
