From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from y235201.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp ([118.243.235.201]:56438 "EHLO mactop" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751128Ab3KZHxY (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 02:53:24 -0500 Received: from [10.81.1.3] (mydomain.com [10.81.1.3]) by mactop (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08665FA99 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:53:22 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <52945372.4050605@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:53:22 +0900 From: dima MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: missing /sbin/fsck.btrfs References: <13F547BC-D81C-45FB-9DC8-9C076B8605EF@colorremedies.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/26/2013 04:18 PM, Duncan wrote: > Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:40:49 -0700 as excerpted: > >> Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful of >> threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like fsck.xfs >> does, but then also the idea that /etc/fstab should correctly set >> fs_passno to 0 instead of such trickery. >> >> I ask due to systemd-fstab-generator seemingly getting the idea from >> Fedora 20's default /etc/fstab that btrfs should have its file system >> checked, and during offline updates, systemd tries to do this, doesn't >> find /sbin/fsck.btrfs, and then has several dozen fits. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034563 >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862871 >> >> So the question, is there supposed to be (one day) a faux >> /sbin/fsck.btrfs? Or should things always check /etc/fstab fs_passno and >> honor the fact there is really no such thing? > > Just symlink/copy fsck.btrfs to (/bin/)true. > > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#What.27s_the_difference_between_btrfsck_and_fsck.btrfs > > Or just do the /etc/fstab fs_passno = 0 thing, which is what I did with > reiserfs, so no change in that regard here when I switched to btrfs > for most partitions. > > But I'm on gentoo and haven't opted to drink the systemd koolaid yet, > so what it thinks about that I wouldn't know. > I think it is better to symlink to true, because otherwise mkinitramfs in the default configuration will be complaining about the missing hook (can be ignored of course)