From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/23] initramfs: simplify clean_rootfs Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:22:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20200723092200.GA19922@lst.de> References: <20200714190427.4332-1-hch@lst.de> <20200714190427.4332-17-hch@lst.de> <7f37802c-d8d9-18cd-7394-df51fa785988@samsung.com> <20200718100035.GA8856@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200718100035.GA8856@lst.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marek Szyprowski Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Song Liu , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:00:35PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:55:48PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > Hi Christoph, > > > > On 14.07.2020 21:04, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Just use d_genocide instead of iterating through the root directory with > > > cumbersome userspace-like APIs. This also ensures we actually remove files > > > that are not direct children of the root entry, which the old code failed > > > to do. > > > > > > Fixes: df52092f3c97 ("fastboot: remove duplicate unpack_to_rootfs()") > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > > This patch breaks initrd support ;-( > > > > I use initrd to deploy kernel modules on my test machines. It was > > automatically mounted on /initrd. /lib/modules is just a symlink to > > /initrd. I know that initrd support is marked as deprecated, but it > > would be really nice to give people some time to update their machines > > before breaking the stuff. > > Looks like your setup did rely on the /dev/ notes from the built-in > initramfs to be preserved. > > Can you comment out the call to d_genocide? It seems like for your > the fact that clean_rootfs didn't actually clean up was a feature and > not a bug. > > I guess the old, pre-2008 code also wouldn't have worked for you in > that case. Did you get a chance to try this?