http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c2 --- Comment #2 from Holger Sickenberg --- Still I could not find out why the "ro" was there and why it did not cause the same problems as before. Maybe new systemd is making use of it while old one did not?! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c6 Dr. Werner Fink changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ohering@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(ohering@suse.com) --- Comment #6 from Dr. Werner Fink --- (In reply to Marcus Meissner from comment #4) IMHO this is a bug of grub2! We had in past serveral bugs that systemd is ignoring the `ro' parameter and now as it reacts on the `ro' parameter a broken grub2 configuration breaks exactly this fix! Asking the original reporter that systemd should respect the `ro' parameter: Now what is todo in this case? Systemd does not know if the `ro' has been specified on the kernels command line by the system adminstrator or is part of the grub2 configuration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c7 Olaf Hering changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|systemd-maintainers@suse.de |mchang@suse.com --- Comment #7 from Olaf Hering --- Upstream grub2 scripts add 'ro' in several places. Looks like our package removed only some of that. Its a bug to force 'ro' into the kernel cmdline. Just as the forced root=, but thats another story... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c9 --- Comment #9 from Olaf Hering --- (In reply to Michael Chang from comment #8)

IMHO, the 'ro' is the right thing to do if you want to run fsck on boot otherwise file system faults may not be recovered. So that we should leave it as default than 'rw', and if we really want 'rw' boot option we should specify it on GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX= or such to override that default (ro).

Its up to the initrd to do that fsck for us, when nothing is mounted. If one really wants a read-only mount the 'ro' exists for that purpose. Too bad upstream does not understand booting... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c11 --- Comment #11 from Olaf Hering --- (In reply to Michael Chang from comment #10)

(In reply to Olaf Hering from comment #9)

...

(In reply to Michael Chang from comment #8)

...

Its up to the initrd to do that fsck for us, when nothing is mounted. If one really wants a read-only mount the 'ro' exists for that purpose. Too bad upstream does not understand booting...

I'm confused, in the bootparam for linux kernel that ro was explained as

"The 'ro' option tells the kernel to mount the root filesystem as 'read-only' so that filesystem consistency check programs (fsck) can do their work on a quiescent filesystem. No processes can write to files on the filesystem in question until it is 'remounted' as read/write capable, for example, by 'mount -w -n -o remount /'."

Yes, thats from the time when no initrd was used and the boot scripts expect a readonly mount. Its not the case for us since years, and most likely for everyone else too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 Michael Chang changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aj@suse.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c14 Marcus Meissner changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #14 from Marcus Meissner --- it was not submitted for maitnenancen. where did you submit what? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c16 --- Comment #16 from Michael Chang --- Hi Franck and Marcus, I'd like to hold the submission until bsc#900558 is made clear. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c18 --- Comment #18 from Benjamin Brunner --- Are there any news on this issue? We have currently blocked the release for 13.1 and 13.2 and waiting for clarification. Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c21 Michael Chang changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mchang@suse.com) | --- Comment #21 from Michael Chang --- (In reply to Thomas Blume from comment #20)

(In reply to Michael Chang from comment #19)

Michael, we have decided to withdraw the readonly patch and to close bsc#900558. COuld you go ahead with your submit now?

I think the submission is not necessary now, as the fixing systemd patch is on the way per our discussion on bsc#900558 .. http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=900558#c70 Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948555#c27 Michael Chang changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #27 from Michael Chang --- Fix has been submitted so that change the status to resolved fixed. Thanks ALL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.