<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Khem Raj <<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com" class="">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Richard Purdie <<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org" class="">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 08:33 +0000, Khem Raj wrote:<br class="">
> - Do not mount /var/volatile to be tmpfs always only when generating<br class="">
> readonly rootfs<br class="">
> - Generate var-volatile.mount unit when using system in readonly-rootfs<br class="">
> to mount /var/volatile as tmpfs<br class="">
> - for sysvinit, mount /var/volatile to be tmpfs if its not already<br class="">
> mounted so<br class="">
> - Use RequiresMountsFor instead of After=, so systemd figures out the<br class="">
> needed dependencies for making /var/volatile accessible for journald<br class="">
> and not us.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Change-Id: I0b176b3e1c1e88e84d2c93154aac04cef565d8ea<br class="">
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'raj.khem@gmail.com')" class="">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>><br class="">
> ---<br class="">
> meta/classes/image.bbclass | 1 +<br class="">
> meta/recipes-core/base-files/base-files/fstab | 1 -<br class="">
> meta/recipes-core/initscripts/initscripts-1.0/read-only-rootfs-hook.sh | 2 +-<br class="">
> meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/journald-volatile.conf | 2 +-<br class="">
> 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)<br class="">
<br class="">
Which combinations has this been tested with? Given the time the patch<br class="">
has existed for, I'm sceptical all the combinations we need have been<br class="">
tested, I'd love to be wrong.<br class="">
<br class="">
This is a pretty major change of behaviour and given the problems<br class="">
previous changes have caused, I'm very very very nervous about what<br class="">
issues this is going to cause :(.</blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Systemd in both ways but not sysvinit </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Just when you think all is well, I just sent a V2, that seemed to work on x86 emulator, but due diligence is better I don’t have sysvinit setups, its fine if it doesn’t go in,</div><div>the fact that patch is out there folks can always back port after release. </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br class="">
Cheers,<br class="">
<br class="">
Richard<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>