[systemd-devel] [PATCH 1/3] fstab-generator: Generate explicit dependencies on systemd-fsck at .service instead of using FsckPassNo

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 01.10.13 04:19, Tom Gundersen (teg at jklm.no) wrote:

> > I'd love to get rid of FsckPassNo=, but I fear that's not that
> > easy... After all it's not just a boolean, it actually influences the
> > ordering of the fsck. There traditionally were two documented phases
> > which you could use to serialize multiple fsck on the same HDD
> > but different partitions, but parallelize it on different HDDs. Now,
> > fsck since a while can determine all that automatically these days. But
> > still by using FsckPassNo= you get ordering deps automatically added.
> >
> > a) leave everything as is and FsckPassNo= does odering deps
> >
> > b) declare that manual passno configuration is stupid beyond treating it
> >    as simple boolean. In thatc ase we should drop all references of
> >    passno in the sources. Of course people might complain that we break
> >    compat with UNIX, but well...
> >
> > c) Pimp up fstab-generator to write complete unit files for
> >    fsck at .service that include the right dependencies. Meh.
> >
> > d) Pimp up fstab-generator to write only .d dropins that add the
> >    necessary deps between the fsck instances, but nothing else.
> >
> > I think c) and a) suck. b) sounds like the best option to me. d) sounds
> > workable too.
> >
> > If we go for b) then I figure people might complain that fstab(5) is not
> > longer compatible with what systemd does?
> 
> b) is tempting. Given fsck's improved internal ordering handling, is
> there actually a usecase for ordering the fsck's? I can't think of any
> off the top of my head...

I struggle coming up with one. I mean, the only I could think of is "oh
my, it always used to work that way, and it is documented that way, you
break UNIX!", which isn't even a usecase, but just confusion.

I have the suspicion that if we remove support for it, and don't tell
anyone nobody might actually notice.

So maybe we should just go ahead and change it to become a boolean only,
and not tell anyone, and that's it? Opinions?

Lennart

PS: And pssssst! It's now totally secret, don't tell anyone about this! Pssst!

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.