On Wed, 02.11.11 12:15, Kay Sievers ([email protected]) wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:21, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le mardi 01 novembre 2011 à 16:54 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > >> On Thu, 27.10.11 16:19, Frederic Crozat ([email protected]) 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.
I agree here, I think such a blacklist should not be copied from fsck. The issue should be fixed in util-linux I guess, not in systemd. Karel, can we convince you to add an option for fsck that checks the existing blacklists, much like -a would do it? Than wed simply pass that option when invoking fsck and everything would be fine. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
