On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > In Fedora 20, by default anaconda sets fs_passno in fstab to 1 for / on > btrfs. During offline updates, this is causing systemd-fstab-generator to > freak out not finding fsck.btrfs. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034563
Right, it should not set 1 for btrfs. > For some time I've been suggesting that fstab should use fs_passno 0 for > btrfs file systems: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862871 See here: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=94192cdaf652c9717f15274504ed315126c07a93 > But because of this suggestion by an XFS dev, I'm wondering if that's not a > good idea. Or if we should expect some smarter behavior on the part of > systemd (now or in the future) when it comes to devices that take a long time > to appear? > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg29231.html It makes no sense, to ship a dead program, just to please broken configs. There should be no fsck for btrfs or any other fs that does not need a check. > It doesn't seem to me that for file systems that don't require an fs check, > that fstab should indicate it does require an fs check, just to inhibit hissy > fits by other processes not liking that the device is missing. But maybe I'm > missing something. Such hacks are plain wrong and not needed for today's systems. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
