On Sat, 28.06.14 19:49, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) wrote:
> fsck.btrfs and fsck.xfs are documented to return immediately, so there is
> little sense in running them. Avoids some user confusion and a few lines
> in the logs.
>
> +static bool mount_skip_fsck(const char *fstype) {
> + static const char table[] =
> + "btrfs\0"
> + "xfs\0";
> +
> + return fstype && nulstr_contains(table, fstype);
> +}
This sounds really unnecessary, no? We already have fsck_exists() in
place that since a very recent commit of mine even detects a per-fstype
fsck implementation being linked to /bin/true... I also downgraded all
warnings for cases like that to LOG_DEBUG, hence the xfs/btrfs case
should already be covered nicely, and fully generic... Why do we need
another explicit blacklist on top of that?
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
