Hi,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Oliver Pinter wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>>>
On 10/19/11, Olivier Smedts wrote:
>
> 2011/10/19 Marc
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Warren Block wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/19/11, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2011/10/19 Marcel Moolenaar :
>
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Andriy Gapon
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Oliver Pinter wrote:
>
>> On 10/19/11, Olivier Smedts wrote:
>>>
>>> 2011/10/19 Marcel Moolenaar :
On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Would you be able to commit a variant of this patch
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Oliver Pinter wrote:
On 10/19/11, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2011/10/19 Marcel Moolenaar :
On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Would you be able to commit a variant of this patch sans the 'x' part?
Yes, soonish. If people like the 'x' change I can do that in a
On 10/19/11, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2011/10/19 Marcel Moolenaar :
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>> Would you be able to commit a variant of this patch sans the 'x' part?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, soonish. If people like the 'x' change I can do that in a followup
>> co
Hello,
2011/10/19 Marcel Moolenaar :
>
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> Would you be able to commit a variant of this patch sans the 'x' part?
>>
>
> Yes, soonish. If people like the 'x' change I can do that in a followup
> commit as well. I just need to know if people like
On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 14/10/2011 18:54 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
>> Andry Gapon wrote:
>>> Simple: revert to the previous behavior. If a user enters incorrect device
>>> name
>>> (i.e. root mounting fails), then return back to the prompt instead of
>>>
on 14/10/2011 18:54 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
> Andry Gapon wrote:
>> Simple: revert to the previous behavior. If a user enters incorrect device
>> name
>> (i.e. root mounting fails), then return back to the prompt instead of
>> panicing.
> That should do the job.
>
> - Arnaud
>
> --
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Andry Gapon wrote:
>> Simple: revert to the previous behavior. If a user enters incorrect device
>> name
>>(i.e. root mounting fails), then return back to the prompt instead of
>>panicing.
> That should do the job.
>
Actually, my pr
Andry Gapon wrote:
> Simple: revert to the previous behavior. If a user enters incorrect device
> name
>(i.e. root mounting fails), then return back to the prompt instead of panicing.
That should do the job.
- Arnaud
---
sys/kern/vfs_mountroot.c | 45 +++-
on 14/10/2011 16:37 Marcel Moolenaar said the following:
>
> On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> on 30/08/2011 13:01 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>>>
>>> So, just to re-iterate, I think that this is indeed a regression and the one
>>> that could be particularly unhelpful fo
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 30/08/2011 13:01 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>>
>> So, just to re-iterate, I think that this is indeed a regression and the one
>> that could be particularly unhelpful for a new release - the time when people
>> are much more likely to
on 30/08/2011 13:01 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> So, just to re-iterate, I think that this is indeed a regression and the one
> that could be particularly unhelpful for a new release - the time when people
> are much more likely to end up at the mountroot prompt during an installation
> o
on 27/08/2011 18:16 Marcel Moolenaar said the following:
> Maybe a good approach is to change to ".onfail retry"
> and extend the root mount prompt with a reboot command,
> so that the user/operator is does not have to worry
> about typos *and* don't have to trigger a panic just
> so that he/she ca
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> So, just to re-iterate, I think that this is indeed a regression and the one
> that could be particularly unhelpful for a new release - the time when people
> are much more likely to end up at the mountroot prompt during an installation
> o
So, just to re-iterate, I think that this is indeed a regression and the one
that could be particularly unhelpful for a new release - the time when people
are much more likely to end up at the mountroot prompt during an installation of
a new system or an upgrade.
on 29/08/2011 23:19 Andriy Gapon
on 29/08/2011 19:45 Marcel Moolenaar said the following:
>
> On Aug 29, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> on 27/08/2011 18:16 Marcel Moolenaar said the following:
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>
It seems that after the introduction of the mountroot
On Aug 29, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 27/08/2011 18:16 Marcel Moolenaar said the following:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems that after the introduction of the mountroot scripting language a
>>> user
>>> now has exactly one chance to t
on 27/08/2011 18:16 Marcel Moolenaar said the following:
>
> On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems that after the introduction of the mountroot scripting language a
>> user
>> now has exactly one chance to try to specify a correct root device at the
>> mountroot promp
On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> It seems that after the introduction of the mountroot scripting language a
> user
> now has exactly one chance to try to specify a correct root device at the
> mountroot prompt. I am not sure that that is convenient/enough.
This is no diffe
It seems that after the introduction of the mountroot scripting language a user
now has exactly one chance to try to specify a correct root device at the
mountroot prompt. I am not sure that that is convenient/enough.
I suspect that the following code is the cause:
static void
vfs_mountroot_con
22 matches
Mail list logo
