Am 01.10.2013 02:58, schrieb Lennart Poettering: > Originally the intention was that root-fsck.service would run fsck for > the root device, anf [email protected] would be used for the rest. The > difference is mostly one about ordering, i.e. root-fsck.service is the > only one that is fine with the fs being already mounted. > > Now, if we have the initrd, then I figure root-fsck.service doesn't make > much sense, but there's something missing I think: if we use > [email protected] for the root device, how do we then communicate to the > root-fsck.service on the host that the file system has already been > checked? How is that supposed to work? > > Harald? What is the idea here?
Can we get some decision here? Right now, we don't get root fsck'ed with 'rw' on the command line, which is worse than fsck'ing twice in the 'ro' case. Colin had the great idea that we drop mask root-fsck.service in /run/systemd/system/ when we run fsck in initrd. For example, the initrd generator could add a service to the initrd that creates the symlink and a .d snippet that makes [email protected] require it. This would work without complex changes to the systemd core and hopefully cover all cases.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
