From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harald Hoyer Subject: Re: initqueue Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:06:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4A4DBBF7.8010501@redhat.com> References: <4A4C87DF.10904@redhat.com> <4A4CAA92.9000401@bfh.ch> <4A4CAD9B.10503@redhat.com> <4A4CB136.6000109@bfh.ch> <4A4CB241.8080406@redhat.com> <4A4CB434.1010001@bfh.ch> <4A4CBFEE.2020500@redhat.com> <1246579473.3339.96.camel@sentry-no.fnordovax.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1246579473.3339.96.camel-76q0VzFBGGr21HsLBtNmTckMGDeJXHgy@public.gmane.org> Sender: initramfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Victor Lowther Cc: Seewer Philippe , initramfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On 07/03/2009 02:04 AM, Victor Lowther wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 16:10 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: >> On 07/02/2009 03:20 PM, Seewer Philippe wrote: >>>>> Why not just put cryptsetup back into mountscripts as I've suggested >>>>> before? >>>>> >>>> Because so much more can be inside the crypto partition, which might >>>> need further processing. >>> That is correct. But if it's in mountscripts, it would fire more >>> udev-events which are caught again by udevadm settle. I don't see >>> a problem there. >> Hmm, we maybe should think of merging pre-mount and mount. >> pre-mount makes no sense, if mounting is done inside udev rules. > > I would like to chime in again with the longstanding race condition > inherent in having resume from hibernate and root fs mounting as udev > rules. Right. Maybe we really should not mount from udev rules, and only generate a /mount script or set a symlink to /dev/root. -- 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