[systemd-devel] [PATCH 1/2] add initrd-fs.target and root-fs.target

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:05:12AM +0900, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2013 10:57 AM, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" <zbyszek at in.waw.pl>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 05:06:01PM +0900, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:41 AM,  <harald at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Harald Hoyer <harald at redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Instead of using local-fs*.target in the initrd, use root-fs.target
> for
> > > > sysroot.mount and initrd-fs.target for /sysroot/usr and friends.
> > > >
> > > > Using local-fs.target would mean to carry over the activated
> > > > local-fs.target to the isolated initrd-switch-root.target and thus in
> > > > the real root. Having local-fs.target already active after
> > > > deserialization causes ordering problems with the real root services
> and
> > > > targets.
> > > >
> > > > We better isolate to targets for initrd-switch-root.target, which are
> > > > only available in the initrd.
> > >
> > > Looks good.
> > >
> > > This means that we should probably stop reusing units at all in the
> > > initramfs. In some cases I guess it works (udev/journal), but perhaps
> > > we should avoid it also there for consistency?
> > >
> > > In particular any storage daemons will need initrd-specific versions
> > > which are ordered against these new targets rather than
> > > local-fs.target. I don't see a problem with this, just something we
> > > need to be aware of.
> > Sorry fot the belated comment, but isn't it possible to exploit the
> > fact that dependencies on non-existent unints are ignored and use
> > something like:
> >
> > WantedBy=local-fs.target initrd-fs.target
> > Before=local-fs.target initrd-fs.target
> >
> > which should work both in the initrd and on the real system?
> >
> > Zbyszek
> 
> Yes, that would work. As long as we don't mind the same unit being possibly
> activated twice: once in the real root and once in the init rd. I guess in
> general it would cause similar problems as what this was meant to solve?
I think that for units the situation is different than for targets.
Let's say that the unit is lvm-monitor.target... Would it matter if
it was active in the initramfs and then in the real root? I suppose
that the unit configuration would be very similar and it wouldn't matter.

Zbyszek