On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 03:39:37PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 15:27, Karel Zak <k...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 12:15:29PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:21, Frederic Crozat <fcro...@suse.com> wrote: > >> > Le mardi 01 novembre 2011 à 16:54 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > >> >> On Thu, 27.10.11 16:19, Frederic Crozat (fcro...@suse.com) wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > You really don't want to fsck a tmpfs, even if passno is non-null (it > >> >> > was causing many issue, forcing system to go to emergency). > >> >> > >> >> Hmm, I wonder if this is the right fix. I wonder what fsck -a does if it > >> >> finds a passno != 0 for an entry where /sbin/fsck.xxx. If that fails on > >> >> it we should probably do so too. If it silently ignores passno != 0 > >> >> where the fsck is missing then we probably should implement a similar > >> >> logic. However doing an explicit check for tmpfs sounds wrong to me: > >> >> there are other fs where fsck makes little sense, and we would have to > >> >> either check them all or none? > >> > > >> > I've just checked fsck code : > >> > - it has a list of "ignore" filesystems : > >> > >> Please let's not start copying that stuff, fsck is hardly an example > >> how things should be done today. Such lists can never be up-to-date, > >> and they are not today. > >> > >> I guess, if such broken configs should be supported, which I'm really > >> not sure about, fsck itself should be made to find that out and return > >> successful without doing anything. Such things should not be guarded > >> in systemd with just another static blacklist. > >> > >> Not sure if there are valid use cases, maybe we are able to skip all > >> mounts which are not backed by a device, where major(s.st_rdev) == 0? > > > > Unfortunately major(s.st_rdev) is probably useless, try to mount any > > btrfs device :-) > > Yeah, it was about fsck only, not mount. :)
Hmm... I'm talking about fsck, try to mount btrfs and check major(st.st_dev) for the mountpoint. > > BTW, in systemd/src/fsck.c I see: > > > > /* Virtual root devices don't need an fsck */ > > if (major(st.st_dev) == 0) > > return 0; > > > > it means that btrfs root will be interpreted as a virtual device :-) > > Oh, why do we run into the issues with tmpfs then? This code is used for system root ("/"). Karel -- Karel Zak <k...@redhat.com> http://karelzak.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel