On Monday 18 August 2014 at 18:40:59, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 18.08.14 18:00, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > On Monday 18 August 2014 at 15:57:25, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > On Fri, 15.08.14 15:35, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > > That should be enough. (You don't need to individually order the > > > > > systemd-fsck@.service instances for the other devices after your > > > > > service, since they are already ordered after > > > > > systemd-fsck-root.service, > > > > > and you order yourself before that, so all is good). > > > > > > > > One more question. What about setups with no initrd and read-write > > > > rootfs? > > > > In such cases, the resume unit must silently skip itself. > > > > > > > > ConditionPathIsReadWrite=!/ doesn't seem to be useful here: with > > > > initramfs > > > > this check will yield a false-negative. > > > > > > I am pretty sure the hibernation stuff should only be supported when an > > > initrd is used. And in that case we should simply not pull in the > > > hibernation service into the non-initrd initial transaction (or in other > > > words, only pull it in by initrd.target, but not otherwise). > > > > Even if initramfs-only, ordering dependencies still need to be worked out. > > Inside of initramfs, neither systemd-fsck-root.service nor > > systemd-remount-fs.service > > do exist, so there's apparently nothing to reliably order against. > > Well, in the initrd the root dir is mounted to /sysroot, which means you > should be able to order yourself before sysroot.mount. > > Lennart > >
...missing sysroot's fsck, as well as any other x-initrd mounts and their fsck instances. Seems that sysroot.mount alone isn't sufficient. -- Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
