From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harald Hoyer Subject: Re: Thoughts on mounting the rootfs from a udev rule Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:07:14 +0100 Message-ID: <49C34EB2.6030703@redhat.com> References: <1237496785.5070.28.camel@sentry-no.fnordovax.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1237496785.5070.28.camel-76q0VzFBGGr21HsLBtNmTckMGDeJXHgy@public.gmane.org> Sender: initramfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "initramfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >> \"initramfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org\"" Victor Lowther wrote: > It seems that there are two major use cases that make mounting the root > file system directly from a udev rule an inadvisable design decision: > > The first is when your root filesystem does not reside on a block > device, as in the nfsroot case. In this case, there is no backing > device for the filesystem for udev to detect, so we would still need a > non-udev method of mounting the root filesystem in order to handle any > case where there is no backing device for the root filesystem. > > The second is when we are asked to resume from hibernate. In this case, > we must not attempt to mount the root filesystem (or any other > filesystem, for that matter) until we have either attempted to resume > (and failed) or we have determined that resuming is impossible. Udev > does not make any guarantees about the order in which devices are > discovered, which leads to all sorts of interesting potential failure > modes when you have either or both of resume handling and rootfs > handling in a udev rule. > > Thoughts? > You are right. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html