On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Kay Sievers <kay.siev...@vrfy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 19:16, Williams, Dan J <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Kay Sievers <kay.siev...@vrfy.org> wrote: >>> People who like to put their rootfs on a userspace managed raid device >>> just get what they asked for. :) >> >> Proper care and feeding of mdmon and userspace managed block devices / >> filesystems is a solvable problem. To me the ":)" runs the risk of >> implying we don't think we can get this right. > > It implied that I think it is totally insane what you guys try to > accomplish. Managing the rootfs blockdev with tools contained in the > rootfs itself is just crazy. No smiley this time. >
Yes, much clearer. Which is why the "never let mdmon run from an fs it is managing" is better than the current dance that was implemented to address the need to drop initramfs memory and get around a lack of having a filesystem (like /run) that persisted from early boot. But we now run back into the problem of pinning initramfs memory. Does systemd already expect that the full initramfs sticks around to handle shutdown? If so then we have come full circle and don't really need the "mdmon --takeover" functionality versus just letting the initramfs-mdmon handle their entire lifetime of the rootfs blockdev. -- Dan _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
