On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Dave Reisner <d...@falconindy.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:49:07PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Thomas Bächler <tho...@archlinux.org> >>> wrote: >>> > This fixes a regression introduced in 64e70e4 where the mount fails >>> > when fstab is misconfigured with fs_passno > 0 on a virtual file >>> > system like tmpfs. >>> > --- >>> > src/fstab-generator/fstab-generator.c | 8 +++++--- >>> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> > >>> > diff --git a/src/fstab-generator/fstab-generator.c >>> > b/src/fstab-generator/fstab-generator.c >>> > index 1227f08..709a1c3 100644 >>> > --- a/src/fstab-generator/fstab-generator.c >>> > +++ b/src/fstab-generator/fstab-generator.c >>> > @@ -255,9 +255,11 @@ static int add_mount( >>> > "Before=%s\n", >>> > post); >>> > >>> > - r = add_fsck(f, what, where, type, passno); >>> > - if (r < 0) >>> > - return r; >>> > + if(is_device_path(what)) { >>> > + r = add_fsck(f, what, where, type, passno); >>> > + if (r < 0) >>> > + return r; >>> > + } >>> > >>> > fprintf(f, >>> > "\n" >>> >>> How does "fsck -A" deal with these cases? >> >> tmpfs falls into the category of pseudofs, which fsck -A will >> intentionally ignore, regardless of the passno. >> >>> Also, how does your patch deal with LABEL= and UUDI=? >> >> At this point, "what" has been filtered through fstab_node_to_udev_node, >> so LABEL=foo will be /dev/disk/by-label/foo. > > Generally, not sure if that it always correct here, kernel "nodev" > superblocks have a dev_t with major == 0 and are very simple to detect > that way.
Hm, so why doesn't fsck just deal gracefully with this? -t _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel