[systemd-devel] [PATCH] readme: CONFIG_FHANDLE is a requirement

[Umut Tezduyar Lindskog]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lennart at poettering.net]
> Sent: den 16 januari 2014 17:14
> To: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
> Cc: systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
> Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] readme: CONFIG_FHANDLE is a
> requirement
> 
> On Tue, 14.01.14 15:26, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (umut.tezduyar at axis.com)
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Umut Tezduyar Lindskog <umuttl at axis.com>
> >
> > ---
> >  README |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/README b/README
> > index a1058c5..6fcab4f 100644
> > --- a/README
> > +++ b/README
> > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ REQUIREMENTS:
> >          Some udev rules and virtualization detection relies on it:
> >            CONFIG_DMIID
> >
> > -        Mount and bind mount handling might require it:
> > +        Mount and bind mount handling requires it:
> >            CONFIG_FHANDLE
> >
> >          Support for some SCSI devices serial number retrieval, to
> 
> Soooo. I don't really care too much whether we declare CONFIG_FHANLDE as
> mandatory or not, but the original intention was to make this an optional
> requirement, not a mandatory one.
> 
> We need the CONFIG_FHANLDE stuff only to detect within tmpfiles (for its
> "aging" stuff) and suchlike whether we are descending into a mount point
> that is of the same file system as the file system it is mounted into. The usual
> checks with stat() on both fs and comparing st_dev won't be reliable in this
> case. This is only a safety check, and in many (especially embedded cases
> with a fixed set of software) it shouldn't matter.
> 
> Now, I never ran the whole thing on a kernel lacking CONFIG_FHANDLE,
> which is probably why the intended optional dep thing didn't work. It should
> be fairly easy to fix that (probably just some checking for errno == ENOTSUP
> or so somewhere). If there's interest to support kernels without
> CONFIG_FHANDLE then I'd be happy to merge a patch that makes this work
> and again declares CONFIG_FHANDLE optional. I'd suspect this to be a three-
> line change or so, for somebody who's interested...

Hi,

We would like to follow the common configuration just to eliminate similar problems in the future and for this reason it is not in our interest. As Lennart suggested, someone else can pick up.

Thanks.

> 
> Lennart
> 
> --
> Lennart Poettering, Red Hat