On Fri, 18.02.11 12:02, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > > A little nitpick/question: > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Miklos Vajna <vmik...@frugalware.org> wrote: > > [Unit] > > Description=LVM activation > > DefaultDependencies=no > > After=udev-settle.service > > Before=local-fs.target > > Is the Before=local-fs.target really necessary? > > Any mounts that will reside on the lvm will already be > Before=local-fs.target, and in the case where automounts are used > instead, I guess we do not want to wait for lvm before local-fs.target > becomes available?
Well, maybe syncing it to local-fs is not necessary, but we probably want to sync it to basic.target at least. Mounts are not the only users of block devices, so a later service might want to use it and hence we should make sure that normal services (which are started after basic.target) can rely that LVM stuff is set up. Some database servers are able to use block devices directly, without any FS on them. > I have the same question about the different fsck services. They > should clearly be Before=*.mount, but wouldn't it be better if they > were not Before=local-fs.service? You have a point there. I have now relaxed this to base.target. (Just to avoid confusion by stuff like udisks and other disk daemon software, which we might not want to start at a time where the fsck is still going on). Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
