[systemd-devel] PATCH: do not run fsck on tmpfs mountpoint

[Lennart Poettering]

On Thu, 27.10.11 16:19, Frederic Crozat (fcrozat at suse.com) wrote:

> You really don't want to fsck a tmpfs, even if passno is non-null (it
> was causing many issue, forcing system to go to emergency).

Hmm, I wonder if this is the right fix. I wonder what fsck -a does if it
finds a passno != 0 for an entry where /sbin/fsck.xxx. If that fails on
it we should probably do so too. If it silently ignores passno != 0
where the fsck is missing then we probably should implement a similar
logic. However doing an explicit check for tmpfs sounds wrong to me:
there are other fs where fsck makes little sense, and we would have to
either check them all or none?

> >From cca125c2758b48ba8f1afdc4b5751b104f0bd809 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Frederic Crozat <fcrozat at suse.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:36:57 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mount: do not try to fsck tmpfs mountpoint with non-null
>  passno.
> 
> ---
>  src/mount.c |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/mount.c b/src/mount.c
> index ef953f0..5da4047 100644
> --- a/src/mount.c
> +++ b/src/mount.c
> @@ -434,6 +434,7 @@ static int mount_add_device_links(Mount *m) {
>  
>          if (p->passno > 0 &&
>              !mount_is_bind(p) &&
> +            !streq(p->fstype,"tmpfs") &&
>              UNIT(m)->meta.manager->running_as == MANAGER_SYSTEM &&
>              !path_equal(m->where, "/")) {
>                  char *name;

> _______________________________________________
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel



Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.