On Tue, 01.10.13 04:42, Kay Sievers (k...@vrfy.org) wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 01.10.13 04:19, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > > > >> > I'd love to get rid of FsckPassNo=, but I fear that's not that > >> > easy... After all it's not just a boolean, it actually influences the > >> > ordering of the fsck. There traditionally were two documented phases > >> > which you could use to serialize multiple fsck on the same HDD > >> > but different partitions, but parallelize it on different HDDs. Now, > >> > fsck since a while can determine all that automatically these days. But > >> > still by using FsckPassNo= you get ordering deps automatically added. > >> > > >> > a) leave everything as is and FsckPassNo= does odering deps > >> > > >> > b) declare that manual passno configuration is stupid beyond treating it > >> > as simple boolean. In thatc ase we should drop all references of > >> > passno in the sources. Of course people might complain that we break > >> > compat with UNIX, but well... > >> > > >> > c) Pimp up fstab-generator to write complete unit files for > >> > fsck@.service that include the right dependencies. Meh. > >> > > >> > d) Pimp up fstab-generator to write only .d dropins that add the > >> > necessary deps between the fsck instances, but nothing else. > >> > > >> > I think c) and a) suck. b) sounds like the best option to me. d) sounds > >> > workable too. > >> > > >> > If we go for b) then I figure people might complain that fstab(5) is not > >> > longer compatible with what systemd does? > >> > >> b) is tempting. Given fsck's improved internal ordering handling, is > >> there actually a usecase for ordering the fsck's? I can't think of any > >> off the top of my head... > > > > I struggle coming up with one. I mean, the only I could think of is "oh > > my, it always used to work that way, and it is documented that way, you > > break UNIX!", which isn't even a usecase, but just confusion. > > > > I have the suspicion that if we remove support for it, and don't tell > > anyone nobody might actually notice. > > > > So maybe we should just go ahead and change it to become a boolean only, > > and not tell anyone, and that's it? Opinions? > > Things like that should probably just be automatically determined by > the machine, and not requiring a human to invent weird passes to do > the job. A boolean sounds fine to me.
OK, sounds good to me. Anyone wants to cook up a patch that removes FsckPassNo= from the core and makes sure the fstab generator only takes the "passno" field in fstab as boolean to enable fsck or not? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
