On 3/3/21 10:38 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:13 AM Nathan Whitehorn
<nwhiteh...@freebsd.org <mailto:nwhiteh...@freebsd.org>> wrote:
On 3/3/21 9:05 AM, Brandon Bergren wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021, at 6:53 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> What am I missing here? One place I am being told this is run in
>> an environment that may not even be an EFI booted system, and in
>> another place it is being used as a test if something is mounted
>> on it, which should only be true on an EFI booted system.
> That the script in question is a generic script that runs as
part of bsdinstall on every platform and has to be universal.
>
> The actual *problem* here is that
usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/bootconfig has a default case that is
> *) die "Unsupported arch $(uname -m) for
UEFI install"
>
> which then causes the main script to bail out, leaving the
system in a half-installed state.
>
> If that had just been an exit 0 this would have never been a
problem, I suppose.
>
> Before the original change that broke this, there was a check
that the script was not running on powerpc or mips platforms
before running the efi bits, but this got taken out.
>
Well, incidentally. The bootconfig script needs to know if there
is an
ESP it should configure, but the signalling mechanism (the
presence of
the ESP mount point) was being broken by mtree making that directory
unconditionally even on systems that don't use EFI. So then
bootconfig
tried to set it up, but failed later on, because there was no EFI
loader
to set up. The mtree change makes the ESP mount point only exist on
systems with an ESP.
So you made a unilateral change, without discussion of the bigger
design, to something without even asking the original person who made
the change to mtree about it for what sounds like an obscure case in
the installer that could be solved in a different way? It's trivial
enough to look at the boot method sysctl and skip the EFI update if we
didn't boot EFI (and if by change that's not on all systems, it's easy
enough to add it on all systems). I have no notion about why that
wasn't considered, at least, before jumping in and taking people by
surprise.
Next time, talk to people first. That's the whole point of having
review tools, mailing list and git blame.
Warner
This method of testing was in the original review here posted on Feb.
23: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D28897
The description of the test procedure you're objecting to was even in
the summary! Then we had a discussion by email about the change to mtree
on the committers list on Feb. 28 to resolve a bug affecting PowerPC in
the patch reviewed and approved by you. I then waited several days and
had a long thread for several days on the mailing list about the
approach. coming up with this short patch -- again, as a bug fix to a
reviewed approach.
We can change the logic -- that's fine! But, to paraphrase, the reason
we have reviews is so people like you can look at the review and note
these kinds of problems when they are reviewed, not after the commit
goes in. There's a significant amount of whiplash when you do get
patches reviewed, approved, and then the person who reviewed and
approved them accuses you of "taking people by surprise".
The installer *does* mount the partition in advance, so checking whether
there is a mounted file system is a perfectly reasonable test to do. We
could also check fstab. I would like to understand what is actually
wrong here first, though. Especially after this misfire -- which is
problematic for reasons that are still not clear to me, since there are
a number of standard directories in hier(7) not in mtree -- I want to
make sure we actually do have consensus about what is changing and why.
-Nathan
_______________________________________________
dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev-commits-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "dev-commits-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
