[systemd-devel] fstab, rootfs on btrfs

[Kay Sievers]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
>
> In Fedora 20, by default anaconda sets fs_passno in fstab to 1 for / on btrfs. During offline updates, this is causing systemd-fstab-generator to freak out not finding fsck.btrfs.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034563

Right, it should not set 1 for btrfs.

> For some time I've been suggesting that fstab should use fs_passno 0 for btrfs file systems:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862871

See here:
  http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=94192cdaf652c9717f15274504ed315126c07a93

> But because of this suggestion by an XFS dev, I'm wondering if that's not a good idea. Or if we should expect some smarter behavior on the part of systemd (now or in the future) when it comes to devices that take a long time to appear?
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg29231.html

It makes no sense, to ship a dead program, just to please broken
configs. There should be no fsck for btrfs or any other fs that does
not need a check.

> It doesn't seem to me that for file systems that don't require an fs check, that fstab should indicate it does require an fs check, just to inhibit hissy fits by other processes not liking that the device is missing. But maybe I'm missing something.

Such hacks are plain wrong and not needed for today's systems.

Kay