On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:17:39PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 06:42:02PM +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote: > >> Add units/sys-firmware-efi-efivars.mount rule for support automount EFI variable filesystem > >> --- > > Hi, > > > > in systemd parlance, automount means autofs mount, but to have that, a > > second .automount unit is needed. Please have a look at > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/units/proc-sys-fs-binfmt_misc.automount > > vs > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/units/proc-sys-fs-binfmt_misc.mount . > > Now the question is whether the loading of the fs is slow enough to > > matter, ie. if it is actually beneficial to use automount instead of > > mounting directly. Since the fs can be compiled as a module, than it > > probably is. > > > > Also, would be nice to add a Documentation= line like in > > proc-sys-fs-binfmt_misc.automount. > > It might all not be worth it, and we might just add it to the > "unconditionally mounted" list in the compiled-in code (marked with > allowed-to-fail). It seems like the better option than having a mount > unit, and a module-load force option. Probably should be measured by someone with UEFI. This will likely be a very rarely used fs, so if the loading time is actually measureable, than automount probably makes sense. > The current mount unit would never trigger for modules, because the > path will not exist. An internal API mount will cause a trransparent > kernel-forked modprobe with the mount() syscall. Yeah, the ConditionPathExists would have to be dropped. Zbyszek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
