[systemd-devel] [PATCH 2/2] fsck: Add support for EFI variable based fsck indication

[Reindl Harald]

Am 09.04.2015 um 19:05 schrieb Kay Sievers:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>
>> Am 09.04.2015 um 18:52 schrieb Kay Sievers:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:02 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We generally follow the rule: we develop for the future, not for the
>>>>> past. A file system like ext234 is clearly not the future,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A filesystem like ext is being actively developed,maintained and new
>>>> features being added to it.
>>>>
>>>> While filesystems are being supported and actively developed,maintained
>>>> and
>>>> new features added to them you hardly can consider them not part of the
>>>> future now can you despite their "shortcomings" compared to eachother.
>>>
>>> It is more about that:
>>>
>>> A filesystem which requires an out-of-kernel fsck, but has no proper
>>> indication in the superblock to indicate that, and integrates that way
>>> with its own fsck tool, is nothing systemd needs to work around.
>>>
>>> If the filesystem wants better integration, it has to provide the
>>> needed features not rely on hacks on mis-use of other facilities like
>>> EFI or the kernel cmdline, or flag files, to cover for the missing
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> At a general level, an out-of-kernel fsck for a filesystem used as the
>>> rootfs soulds really really weird in the year 2015. And this is not
>>> neccessarily about btrfs, xfs solved that problem many many years ago
>>
>> http://linux.die.net/man/8/xfs_check
>>
>> "If the filesystem is very large (has many files) then xfs_check might run
>> out of memory. In this case the message out of memory is printed" sounds
>> really so much better than ext4....
>
> Yeah, that is why Red Hat Enterprise Linux uses XFS as the default.
> Too bad for them that they did not ask for you valuable expert
> advise

keep your cynicism for yourself

* i just pointed out that NO current existing and stable FS is perfect
* "xfs solved that problem many many years ago" and "Red Hat Enterprise
   Linux uses XFS as the default" combined with "weird in the year 2015"
   is only arrogant given that this is a recent change in RHEL7
* before ext4 was the default FS
* just because you say the whole world won't go and convert anything
   to XFS and there are filesystems which will use ext4 in 10 years
   as now

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20150409/f6c09c2e/attachment.sig>