[PATCH] 98usrmount: don't pass fstab fs options as fsck options

[PATCH] 98usrmount: don't pass fstab fs options as fsck options

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

For example for line in /etc/fstab:

  /dev/vg/usr  /usr  ext4  nosuid,nodev  0 2

fsck_single is called as follows:

  fsck_single /dev/vg/usr ext4 nosuid,nodev

and this eventually resolves to:

  e2fsck -a nosuid,nodev /dev/vg/usr

which causes e2fsck usage error.
---
 modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh b/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
index a61f935..fc205d5 100755
--- a/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
+++ b/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ mount_usr()
 
     if [ "x$_usr_found" != "x" ]; then
         # we have to mount /usr
-        fsck_single "$_dev" "$_fs" "$_opts"
+        fsck_single "$_dev" "$_fs"
         _ret=$?
         echo $_ret >/run/initramfs/usr-fsck
         if [ $_ret -ne 255 ]; then
@@ -29,4 +29,4 @@ mount_usr()
     fi
 }
 
-mount_usr
\ No newline at end of file
+mount_usr
-- 
1.7.8.3

Re: [PATCH] 98usrmount: don't pass fstab fs options as fsck options

[Cong Wang]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 at 11:48 GMT, Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@aidecoe.name> wrote:
> For example for line in /etc/fstab:
>
>   /dev/vg/usr  /usr  ext4  nosuid,nodev  0 2
>
> fsck_single is called as follows:
>
>   fsck_single /dev/vg/usr ext4 nosuid,nodev
>
> and this eventually resolves to:
>
>   e2fsck -a nosuid,nodev /dev/vg/usr
>
> which causes e2fsck usage error.
> ---
>  modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh b/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
> index a61f935..fc205d5 100755
> --- a/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
> +++ b/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ mount_usr()
>  
>      if [ "x$_usr_found" != "x" ]; then
>          # we have to mount /usr
> -        fsck_single "$_dev" "$_fs" "$_opts"
> +        fsck_single "$_dev" "$_fs"

Yes, this change makes sense.

>          _ret=$?
>          echo $_ret >/run/initramfs/usr-fsck
>          if [ $_ret -ne 255 ]; then
> @@ -29,4 +29,4 @@ mount_usr()
>      fi
>  }
>  
> -mount_usr
> \ No newline at end of file
> +mount_usr

But what is this one??

Re: [PATCH] 98usrmount: don't pass fstab fs options as fsck options

[Harald Hoyer]

On 13.01.2012 18:07, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 at 11:48 GMT, Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe-2qtfh70TtYba5EbDDlwbIw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> For example for line in /etc/fstab:
>>
>>   /dev/vg/usr  /usr  ext4  nosuid,nodev  0 2
>>
>> fsck_single is called as follows:
>>
>>   fsck_single /dev/vg/usr ext4 nosuid,nodev
>>
>> and this eventually resolves to:
>>
>>   e2fsck -a nosuid,nodev /dev/vg/usr
>>
>> which causes e2fsck usage error.
>> ---
>>  modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh |    4 ++--
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh b/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>> index a61f935..fc205d5 100755
>> --- a/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>> +++ b/modules.d/98usrmount/mount-usr.sh
>> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ mount_usr()
>>  
>>      if [ "x$_usr_found" != "x" ]; then
>>          # we have to mount /usr
>> -        fsck_single "$_dev" "$_fs" "$_opts"
>> +        fsck_single "$_dev" "$_fs"
> 
> Yes, this change makes sense.
> 
>>          _ret=$?
>>          echo $_ret >/run/initramfs/usr-fsck
>>          if [ $_ret -ne 255 ]; then
>> @@ -29,4 +29,4 @@ mount_usr()
>>      fi
>>  }
>>  
>> -mount_usr
>> \ No newline at end of file
>> +mount_usr
> 
> But what is this one??

That just adds a newline at the end of the file, IIRC

Re: [PATCH] 98usrmount: don't pass fstab fs options as fsck options

[Cong Wang]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 at 10:10 GMT, Harald Hoyer <harald-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>  
>>> -mount_usr
>>> \ No newline at end of file
>>> +mount_usr
>> 
>> But what is this one??
>
> That just adds a newline at the end of the file, IIRC
>

As long as this patch can be applied, I have no objections. :)