On Do, 09.01.20 15:56, Phillip Susi (ph...@thesusis.net) wrote: > Someone in #debian mentioned to me that they were getting some odd > errors in their logs when running gparted. It seems that several > years
gparted really shouldn't mask units, that's just wrong. They should just take BSD file locks, as documented here: https://systemd.io/BLOCK_DEVICE_LOCKING > ago there was someone with a problem caused by systemd auto mounting > filesystems in response to udev events triggered by gparted, and so as a > workaround, gparted masks all mount units. Curtis Gedeck and I can't > seem to figure out now, why this was needed because we can't seen to get > systemd to automatically mount a filesystem just because it's device is > hot plugged. Are there any circumstances under which systemd will mount > a filesystem when it's device is hotplugged? This is now controlled by the x-systemd.device-bound mount option, see here: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.mount.html#x-systemd.device-bound > Also I'm pretty sure this part is a bug in systemd: any service that > depends on -.mount ( so most of them ) it will refuse to start while > -.mount is masked. It shouldn't matter that it's masked if it is > already mounted should it? Only if it isn't mounted, then it can't be > mounted to satisfy the dependency. Can you file a bug about this? Sounds like something to fix. (But really, don't mask -.mount, really don't, masing is a heavy heavy hammer, and not appropriate for clean codepaths) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
