On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 04:18 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Randy Witt <randy.e.w...@linux.intel.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> When the storage mode for the journal is "auto" if /var/log/journal >> >> exists then the journal will flush to /var/log/journal assuming that >> >> /var/log/journal is persistent. >> >> >> >> However /var/log -> /var/volatile/log in poky, so even though >> >> /var/log/journal exists, it is still volatile. >> >> >> >> Since this can cause ordering issues due to /var/volatile needing to be >> >> mounted before the journal actually writes to it, just specify that the >> >> journal >> >> should always be volatile and never try to write to "persistent" >> >> storage. The journal will exist in /run/log/journal only. >> >> >> >> This also disables the "After" of the journal on var-volatile.mount >> >> since the ordering is no longer necessary when the journal is only >> >> stored in /run/log/journal. >> >> >> >> [Yocto #7388] >> > >> > >> > This is not right. What if I want persistent logs.? the options is just >> > gone. Both cases should work. /var/volatile should only be used >> > when doing ro-rfs its not FHS specified anyway. Lets not go with this >> > patch. >> >> Agreed. > > This isn't quite so simple as "agreed". Are we saying that we want to > rework volatiles handling after feature freeze? > > My view on this is that yes, we do need to do something about it, but > right now during stabilisation is not the right time. Particularly when > the patches proposed aren't even tested with sysvinit. > > So I'm interested in patches which make things work better without > making fundamental changes now. We can look at changing volatiles with a > properly thought out plan in the next development cycle. > > Making the systemd configuration match the rest of the default system > setup would seem to be sensible. We should make it possible for others > to override that if their setup isn't volatile.
I am saying we should then test the patch (from Khem) and see if it is valid for merge. Khem being quite active contributor I am sure will be willing to help to fix any issue for merging (and regression, if any). I think having the volatile support working is very important and as we are not releasing tomorrow ... -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core