> On 4. Feb 2022, at 23:19, Alexander Nasonov <alnsn%yandex.ru@localhost> wrote: > > Martin Husemann wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 11:10:43PM +0000, Alexander Nasonov wrote: >>> variable, it will mix two very different styles of mounting and >>> compilate the code. > > s/compilate/complicate/ > >> "different styles of mounting" sounds like a non-starter to me, maybe >> that should be fixed first? > > These two "styles of mounting" are > > /sbin/mount /filesystem - looks up fs parameters in /etc/fstab > /sbin/zfs mount dataset - looks up fs parameters in zpools > > I don't think these two approaches can be unified. What is wrong with ZFS legacy mounts? $ zpool create -m legacy tank .... $ zfs create tank/a $ mount -t zfs tank/a /mnt > We surely > can modify mount_critical_systems to try entries from /etc/fstab > first, and if /sbin/mount fails, then try to find a zfs dataset > for the failed entry and /sbin/zfs mount it. But if things go > wrong, a complicated mounting process will make troubleshooting > harder. For that reason, I'd like to keep mountcrit_zfs separate > from mountcrit_local. -- J. Hannken-Illjes - hannken%mailbox.org@localhost
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP