On Monday 25 August 2014 at 20:07:28, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 25.08.14 21:52, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > - legacy usr.mount is not automatically ordered after > > > > local-fs-pre.target, > > > > so systemd-resume@.service has to be manually ordered before it; > > > > > > Not following here. We do not really support /usr split out unless it is > > > already mounted in the initrd. But in the initrd its called > > > "sysroot-usr.mount"... To me this doesn't look like something to do here? > > > > Theoretically it is possible to have initramfs's /usr split out. > > I know that it sounds crazy, but if someone will do this, they will lose > > their > > data if usr.mount not properly handled. > > initrd cannot have their data split out. I am completely happy about > breaking this, should it exist (which I doubt).
OK. Removed "Before=usr.mount" for v4. > > > If either "systemd-udev-hwdb-update.service" or "systemd-sysusers.service" > > becomes part of the transaction (== becomes included in the initramfs), > > it becomes impossible for "systemd-resume@.service" to start after > > "systemd-udevd.service". The outcome can vary: > > > > - a 90 second wait for dev-disk-by\x2dfoo-bar.device and dependency failure > > (if "After=systemd-udevd.service" has not been specified); > > > > - an ordering cycle and removal of "systemd-resume@.service" from > > transaction > > (if "After=systemd-udevd.service" has been specified, just as it is now). > > > > Both situations are very unlikely (who would add usr.mount to initramfs? who > > would add systemd-sysusers.service to initramfs?), but nevertheless > > possible. > > Hmm, let me see, so you are basically saying that udev wants to run > after sysusers, and sysusers shall run after the file systems are > mounted, and that systemd-resume@.service wants to run before that, but > needs to wait until the devices have popped up, which they won't until > udev is started? Yes, I've meant exactly this. > > So, I am pretty sure we don#t want an explicit After= order here between > dbus and systemd-resume@.service... > > Hmm, but yuck, I don't see a nice way to fix this for good. Grrr. > > I'd probably just merge this as is, and let people who are crazy enough > to run sysuers or hwdb-update in the initrd, to figure this out. Let's > just wait until this pops up... > > Lennart So, do you want me to leave "After=systemd-udevd.service" or remove it? (An ordering cycle or a waiting timeout?) -- Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
