On 11 October 2014 20:14, Michael Biebl <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 11.10.2014 um 20:58 schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov: >> So what needs doing? Because to mount btrfs /dev/sdb, >> systemd-udev-trigger is needed to generate "block" "add" event and >> thus execute btrfs scan, in the initramfs-less case. >> And ate the moment systemd-udev-trigger is only called after local-fs. > > How did you come to that conclusion that this is happening? At least the > timestamps in the systemdadm dump do not confirm what you are suggesting: >
By inspecting conditions, which i clearly parsed wrong. I don't have access to a initramfsless system, and I didn't read into systemdadm dump at all. > -> Unit systemd-udev-trigger.service: > Description: udev Coldplug all Devices > Instance: n/a > Unit Load State: loaded > Unit Active State: active > Inactive Exit Timestamp: Sun 2014-09-21 21:51:55 CEST > Active Enter Timestamp: Sun 2014-09-21 21:51:55 CEST > > > -> Unit local-fs.target: > Description: Local File Systems > Instance: n/a > Unit Load State: loaded > Unit Active State: active > Inactive Exit Timestamp: Sun 2014-09-21 21:51:57 CEST > Active Enter Timestamp: Sun 2014-09-21 21:51:57 CEST > > Actually that dump is very confusing for me to read, but it does have timestamps for udev-trigger 2 seconds before data-gentoo, data and home mount. Then yeah, we need a log of udev events that were triggered during udev-trigger time. > To me it rather looks like "btrfs scan" is not triggered at all. Actually it looks like it was, no? Because data-gentoo, data and home mount units and local-fs did succeed, no?! If btrfs scan was not run, they wouldn't be active but failed or some such?! I'm further confused by reading into systemdadm output than I was before. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
