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

[Lennart Poettering]

On Wed, 02.11.11 12:15, Kay Sievers (kay.sievers at vrfy.org) wrote:

> 
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:21, Frederic Crozat <fcrozat at suse.com> wrote:
> > Le mardi 01 novembre 2011 à 16:54 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> >> 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?
> >
> > I've just checked fsck code :
> > - it has a list of "ignore" filesystems :
> 
> Please let's not start copying that stuff, fsck is hardly an example
> how things should be done today. Such lists can never be up-to-date,
> and they are not today.
> 
> I guess, if such broken configs should be supported, which I'm really
> not sure about, fsck itself should be made to find that out and return
> successful without doing anything. Such things should not be guarded
> in systemd with just another static blacklist.

I agree here, I think such a blacklist should not be copied from
fsck. The issue should be fixed in util-linux I guess, not in systemd.

Karel, can we convince you to add an option for fsck that checks the
existing blacklists, much like -a would do it? Than wed simply pass that
option when invoking fsck and everything would be fine.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.