Thanks for explanation, it thread can be closed. 2014-08-18 0:41 GMT+03:00 Dave Reisner <d...@falconindy.com>: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:25:00AM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote: >> Good time of day, i just want to ask: >> Systemd depend on util-linux mount command and in code we call him, >> may have a sense to import and cleanup code to systemd base, and just >> call function in systemd, instead of using mount command? >> >> But only benefit what i see: >> it faster, when call external command, but i can miss something > > tl;dr: this simply isn't a good idea, as it would require reimplementing > a substantial amount of code to retain feature parity. > > systemd already uses mount(2) where it's reasonable: kernel filesystems > like /sys, /dev, and /proc. > > Some reasons not to do this for all filesystems: > > 1) You have to fork, anyways, because you don't want to call mount(2) > from PID 1 -- the syscall may not return for a relatively long period of > time. During this time, systemd will be entirely non-responsive. > 2) Mounting filesystems is sometimes complex, and involves an external > helper, regardless. fuse, cifs, and nfs immediately come to mind, but > there's others. mount(8) knows how to find and execute these when > necessary. > 3) mount(8) takes care of cleaning the option string from /etc/fstab -- > not all options are meant to be passed to the kernel (or the external > mount helpers), such as any option which starts with "x-" (like > x-systemd.automount). > > Cheers, > d
-- Have a nice day, Timofey. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
