Le mardi 01 novembre 2011 à 16:54 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> On Thu, 27.10.11 16:19, Frederic Crozat (fcro...@suse.com) wrote:
>
> > You really don't want to fsck a tmpfs, even if passno is non-null (it
> > was causing many issue, forcing system to go to emergency).
>
> Hmm, I wonder if this is the right fix. I wonder what fsck -a does if it
> finds a passno != 0 for an entry where /sbin/fsck.xxx. If that fails on
> it we should probably do so too. If it silently ignores passno != 0
> where the fsck is missing then we probably should implement a similar
> logic. However doing an explicit check for tmpfs sounds wrong to me:
> there are other fs where fsck makes little sense, and we would have to
> either check them all or none?
I've just checked fsck code :
- it has a list of "ignore" filesystems :
"ignore",
"iso9660",
"nfs",
"proc",
"sw",
"swap",
"tmpfs",
"devpts",
- it has a list of "really wanted" filesystems :
"minix",
"ext2",
"ext3",
"ext4",
"ext4dev",
"jfs",
"reiserfs",
"xiafs",
"xfs",
- during fsck -a, it automatically ignore mount points from ignore list,
then, if a mountpoint is using a "really wanted" filesystems and
fsck.XXXX doesn't exist, it just warns about it (otherwise, it silently
ignore it).
--
Frederic Crozat <fcro...@suse.com>
SUSE
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
