[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Patch for fsautoresize



On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 02:03:14PM +0200, Wolfgang Schweer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:54:21AM +0200, Giorgio Pioda wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:08:02AM +0200, Wolfgang Schweer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:30:37AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Did the format of /proc/mounts change?
> > > 
> > > The additional /dev/dm-* lines (added by the kernel?) might be causing 
> > > the reported failure.
> > 
> > In WS client /proc/mounts the vg_system entries are totally mising. Only
> > /dev/dm-X are there, which are not recognized by lvextend.
> 
> Confirmed for a stock ws: /dev/dm-0 (for /) and /dev/dm-2 (for /usr) are 
> replacing the vg_system entries.
  
> I guess the /proc/mounts change is due to initramfs-tools now doing a 
> file system check of the root fs (and of /usr if on a separate 
> partition).
> 
> See /usr/share/doc/initramfs-tools/NEWS.Debian.gz
 
This might work to solve the problem. Would someone with coding skills 
please check it.

--- a/debian-edu-fsautoresize	2015-09-20 14:11:49.000000000 +0200
+++ b/debian-edu-fsautoresize	2015-09-20 21:20:31.014572174 +0200
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
 
 use Getopt::Std;
 use Sys::Syslog qw(openlog syslog closelog LOG_NOTICE);
+use File::Basename;
 
 # Using this module (instead of Filesys::DiskSpace) to get a version
 # providing the device size, and not only free and used.
@@ -194,6 +195,12 @@
         chomp;
         my @f = split(/\s+/);
         my $device = $f[0];
+        # Always use mapper names instead of kernel ones.
+        if (index ($f[0],"/dev/dm-") != -1) {
+           my $basename = basename($f[0]);
+           $device = "/dev/mapper/".`ls -l /dev/mapper/ | grep $basename | cut -d' ' -f15`;
+        }
+        chomp $device;
         my $mountpoint = $f[1];
         my $typename = $f[2];
         next unless (exists $fsops{$typename});


Wolfgang

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: