From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zbigniew =?utf-8?Q?J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek?= Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Add syste-firmware-efi-efivars.mount for support automount EFI variable filesystem Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:23:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20121024122337.GV19454@in.waw.pl> References: <1351075322-3824-1-git-send-email-jlee@suse.com> <20121024121246.GU19454@in.waw.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Kay Sievers Cc: "Lee, Chun-Yi" , systemd-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, Matt Fleming , "Lee, Chun-Yi" , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Jeremy Kerr , Matthew Garrett List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:17:39PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Zbigniew J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 06:42:02PM +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote: > >> Add units/sys-firmware-efi-efivars.mount rule for support automoun= t EFI variable filesystem > >> --- > > Hi, > > > > in systemd parlance, automount means autofs mount, but to have that= , a > > second .automount unit is needed. Please have a look at > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/units/proc-sys-fs-= binfmt_misc.automount > > vs > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/units/proc-sys-fs-= binfmt_misc.mount . > > Now the question is whether the loading of the fs is slow enough to > > matter, ie. if it is actually beneficial to use automount instead o= f > > mounting directly. Since the fs can be compiled as a module, than = it > > probably is. > > > > Also, would be nice to add a Documentation=3D line like in > > proc-sys-fs-binfmt_misc.automount. >=20 > It might all not be worth it, and we might just add it to the > "unconditionally mounted" list in the compiled-in code (marked with > allowed-to-fail). It seems like the better option than having a mount > unit, and a module-load force option. Probably should be measured by someone with UEFI. This will likely be a very rarely used fs, so if the loading time is actually measureable, than automount probably makes sense. > The current mount unit would never trigger for modules, because the > path will not exist. An internal API mount will cause a trransparent > kernel-forked modprobe with the mount() syscall. Yeah, the ConditionPathExists would have to be dropped. Zbyszek