At Fri, 30 May 2025 23:54:32 -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski <frchu...@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: Xen boot strangeness (Was: Re: [SOLVED] Re: Xen 4.18.5_20250521nb0 not ELF binary (Was: Re: EFI and Xen)) > > On 5/30/2025 4:35 PM, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > On one such legacy system I pass "bootdev=sd0" and it figures out which > > partition to use, but in theory this could/should be "root=sd0a" (maybe > > with "dump=sd0b"). > > I would be curious to know what happens if you set bootdev=sd0a instead of > bootdev=sd0 on that system. I cannot test the legacy case on my box.
I have no reason to suspect it would fail -- though perhaps it would
indeed go through the silly logic of still setting the booted dev to
"sd0" and then assuming the root partition is the "a" slice that it had
just chopped off the given string.
> I think your arguments to totally ditch the code that tries to find the
> "booted_partition" would be much stronger if trying sd0a instead of sd0
> does not work.
Getting rid of the silly code that makes assumptions about slice "a"
(and slice "b") and going directly to specifying the root device name
exactly with no tricks or assumptions would obviously also work.
--
Greg A. Woods <gwo...@acm.org>
Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <wo...@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <wo...@planix.com> Avoncote Farms <wo...@avoncote.ca>
pgpFgmbjtA8V8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
