Re: [arch-projects] [mkinitcpio][PATCH] init: add timestamp at start of initramfs if binary exists

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 01:28:41AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Dave Reisner wrote:

...

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 05:37:11PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:

...

This will allow us to tell how much time was spent in the initramfs, which might be good for working on optimizations and making sure we don't regress.

If this is accepted, I suggest adding the following install hook (call it "timestamp" or something like that) to the systemd package:

I'd call it systemd. It's unclear what's going to happen with early userspace a year from now wrt systemd possibly invading it in some way. We may as well start now with something more generically named to avoid having to possibly rename it at some point down the road.

...

...

#!/bin/bash

build() {    add_binary /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-timestamp /usr/bin/timestamp

I'm very confused as to why we would call the binary something different in the initramfs. Shouldn't we not screw around with the name?

I'm inclined to agree with this. The namespacing should stay.

If you want to think of this as "a hook that does systemd related things", then keeping the name makes the most sense. I was thinking it would be "a hook that records the timestamp, we just happen to use the systemd implementation" and that we'd add other hooks if we wanted more systemd features in the future.

I'm fine with the way you and Dan suggest though. Do you want me to resubmit, or will you just change it when you apply it?

-t

So, just to dig up this aging thread -- was revisiting this for applying. Based on how systemd has declared how it's invading early userspace, I'd say that this is better off being called timestamp. Stuffing everything needed into a single 'systemd' hook won't work out. Huzzah. d