On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > > The whole major/minor comment confuses people. Simply state that the > root device does not exist and/or could not be created.
sure sure, can do. On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:01:52PM -0600, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > > root= is extremely *non*-arbitrary. It always exists, and it's 1 of > three things: > > - a filesystem path to a block device (e.g. /dev/sdxy or > /dev/disk/by-....) > - a tag with a value (LABEL=mysweetdisk) > - a hex encoded major/minor device number (e.g. fe01) > > That's all it can ever be in the current codebase. but this is the crux of what i meant by `is opaque` -- by assuming the root= can never be anything but the above, you have limited it's general applicability. all it needs to do is attempt running "some command that makes /new_root available", it doesn't need to care about anything else because it's essentially a high level interface for the user. by moving the blockdev check somewhere else, you could reuse `default_mount_handler` as general "UI" logic for any mount hook, be nfs/9p/.../.../etc > And that said, I broke out resolution of the root= parameter to its own > function so that the mount handler never needs to see it as anything > but a filesystem path to a block device. ... and that is a great change, taking it 95%, this is just the last %5. > There seems to be a much simpler solution to all this, which is sort of > in line with your idea. Don't assume that mount will fail. Just try it, > and let it fail. Only then, when it does, check to see if its a block > device and complain, e.g. > > http://code.falconindy.com/cgit/mkinitcpio.git/commit/?h=throwaway that solves my immediate need, yes. i figured i would improve the interface while i was there, since by default, no details are provided about the fail, and it's lees than obvious what the next step could/should be (esp. for someone not expecting the fail, or seeing it for the first time). > Not going to comment on the rest of this. excellente! i presume that's roughly analogous to "i like my opponent, i think he's a good man, but quite frankly" ... ... "i-agree-with-everything-he-just-said" ... ;-) tbc -- C Anthony
