В Sun, 10 May 2015 19:47:58 +0000 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> пишет:
> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 09:59:18PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > > В Sun, 10 May 2015 17:23:12 +0000 > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> пишет: > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 07:12:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > On Wed, 06.05.15 15:50, Harald Hoyer (harald.ho...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > > > Works for me... booted with "ro" on the kernel cmdline: > > > > > > > > > > $ systemctl status systemd-fsck-root.service > > > > > ● systemd-fsck-root.service - File System Check on Root Device > > > > > Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/systemd-fsck-root.service; > > > > > static; > > > > > vendor preset: disabled) > > > > > Active: inactive (dead) since Mi 2015-05-06 15:37:58 CEST; 1min > > > > > 44s ago > > > > > Docs: man:systemd-fsck-root.service(8) > > > > > Main PID: 144 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) > > > > > CGroup: /system.slice/systemd-fsck-root.service > > > > > > > > I think tis is really confusing for the admin. he now thinks that this > > > > is actually the exit status of the root fsck, but it's atcually just > > > > /bin/true. > > > I pushed now a version which generates a real systemd-fsck-root.service > > > in the initramfs. > > > > > > It *does* introduce the extra synchronization dep. If it turns out to be > > > a problem, it should be easy enough to fix, > > > > If it easy to fix, why not do it upfront? > I see two ways to implement that: > > - add a target (e.g. systemd-fsck-root.target), and order > systemd-fsck-root.service > before it, systemd-fsck-root@.service after it, but don't install this > target > into the initramfs. This way, we'll have a dependency only in the real fs. > - make the After=systemd-fsck-root.service dependency only in the real fs. > For example, this could be done by moving it to a snippet > /usr/lib/systemd/system/systemd-fsck@.service.d/root-dependency.conf, > and not installing this snippet in the initramfs. > > Either way is "easy", but annoyingly visible. If you have a non-theoretical > use case where this matters, or a simpler / less visible way to do it, > then indeed I'd do it right now. > I see. No, I do not have practical example before me. The only case I'm aware of when this would matter is root on loop, but I have never seen such system myself (and distribution I use currently does not offer this in installer, as far as I know). _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
