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

[Karel Zak]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 12:55:56PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> 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.

 I think we can use the blacklist always, add a new option seems like
 overkill.  If the list makes sense for -a then the same list should
 be usable for non-all mode too.

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak at redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com