Re: [systemd-devel] Cannot mount anything after recovering and redoing boot mbr

2015-07-28 Thread ccox
On Mon, 27.07.15 16:35, c...@endlessnow.com (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote: On Mon, 27.07.15 01:18, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote: I suspect that somebody here knows why, but all mounts now fail... well all but /. Has anyone run across this before? What did I miss? I

[systemd-devel] kdbus, udev and systemd in the initramfs

2015-07-28 Thread Michael Biebl
Hi, something I was wondering regarding kdbus and udev. If udev wants to drop the netlink transport and instead rely on kdbus, would this mean, systemd becomes mandatory in the initramfs to setup kdbus before udev is run? Will it still be possible in the future to run udev without systemd in

Re: [systemd-devel] kdbus, udev and systemd in the initramfs

2015-07-28 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Michael Biebl mbi...@gmail.com wrote: something I was wondering regarding kdbus and udev. If udev wants to drop the netlink transport and instead rely on kdbus, would this mean, systemd becomes

[systemd-devel] Suggestion for a lowlevel fsnotify change daemon.

2015-07-28 Thread Stef Bon
Hi all, for some time I have been looking at the issue why fsnotify does not work with network filesystems and FUSE (with a shared backend). I've found out that changes initiated on the localhost, on the filesystem are supported by the fs change subsystems on Linux, and events initiated at the

Re: [systemd-devel] kdbus, udev and systemd in the initramfs

2015-07-28 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Michael Biebl mbi...@gmail.com wrote: something I was wondering regarding kdbus and udev. If udev wants to drop the netlink transport and instead rely on kdbus, would this mean, systemd becomes mandatory in the initramfs to setup kdbus before udev is run? _If_

Re: [systemd-devel] Suggestion for a lowlevel fsnotify change daemon.

2015-07-28 Thread Mantas Mikulėnas
At first look, this seems very similar to FAM (which even supported NFSv3, using custom notifications over SunRPC). Later I remember GNOME replaced it with Gamin and finally with local-only inotify inside glib/gvfs. It might be useful to revive it, both inotify and fanotify have problems. But I

Re: [systemd-devel] persistent network device names

2015-07-28 Thread Keller, Jacob E
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 06:22 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: В Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:05:37 + Keller, Jacob E jacob.e.kel...@intel.com пишет: On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 21:53 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: В Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:29:57 + Keller, Jacob E jacob.e.kel...@intel.com пишет:

Re: [systemd-devel] Suggestion for a lowlevel fsnotify change daemon.

2015-07-28 Thread Simon McVittie
On 28/07/15 17:28, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: At first look, this seems very similar to FAM (which even supported NFSv3, using custom notifications over SunRPC). Later I remember GNOME replaced it with Gamin and finally with local-only inotify inside glib/gvfs. What GLib actually uses is an

Re: [systemd-devel] Suggestion for a lowlevel fsnotify change daemon.

2015-07-28 Thread Stef Bon
2015-07-28 19:20 GMT+02:00 Simon McVittie simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk: On 28/07/15 17:28, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: At first look, this seems very similar to FAM (which even supported NFSv3, using custom notifications over SunRPC). Later I remember GNOME replaced it with Gamin and

Re: [systemd-devel] Completion of error handling

2015-07-28 Thread SF Markus Elfring
I have no understanding of Coccinelle. I do not understand what you are saying. The application of a few scripts in the semantic patch language can occasionally help to improve some software, can't it? Now I'll try again to present more detailed source code analysis results according to

Re: [systemd-devel] udev and dm inotify problems

2015-07-28 Thread Oleksii Shevchuk
Most likely you built your LVM/dm userspace without proper udev support, or left support in there that creates device nodes on its own. Nowadays with devtmpfs device nodes are created exclusively by the kernel and userspace should never create a single device node. If your LVM/DM tools

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-tmpfiles for the user instance of systemd

2015-07-28 Thread Dan Tihelka
On Tuesday 28 of July 2015 03:31:08 Lennart Poettering wrote: On Sat, 04.07.15 13:23, Tomasz Torcz (to...@pipebreaker.pl) wrote: On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 08:31:42PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Wed, 01.07.15 12:35, Daniel Tihelka (dtihe...@gmail.com) wrote: Hello, does anyone