On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:34:44AM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> 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 fsck@.service 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
> > fsck@.service 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 systemd-fsck@.service require it. This would
> work without complex changes to the systemd core and hopefully cover all
> cases.
Hm, why not add ConditionKernelCommandLine=!ro instead to
systemd-root-fsck.service? ('rw' is the default, the lack of 'ro'
means 'rw'.)
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
