> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pgoyette
> Date: Tue May 6 18:16:12 UTC 2025
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/i386/stand/boot: boot2.c
> src/sys/arch/i386/stand/lib: bootmenu.c libi386.h
> src/sys/arch/i386/stand/pxeboot: main.c
> src/sys/lib/libsa: bootcfg.c bootcfg.h
>
> Log Message:
> Allow the dev= command when processing /boot.cfg file. This
> addresses kern/59207
The goal of this change looks good, but I worry that:
(a) this is a high-risk change because if it breaks someone's
bootloader then it renders the machine nonbootable (and we have very
limited automatic testing of bootloaders -- which is a problem in
itself, not your fault!), and
(b) I'm confused by how some parts of it are relevant to the goal,
particularly these hunks:
--- a/sys/lib/libsa/bootcfg.c Tue May 06 17:12:33 2025 +0000
+++ b/sys/lib/libsa/bootcfg.c Tue May 06 18:16:12 2025 +0000
...
@@ -227,8 +227,6 @@ perform_bootcfg(const char *conf, bootcf
bootcfg_info.consdev = value;
} else if (!strncmp(key, "root", 4)) {
bootcfg_info.root = value;
- } else if (!strncmp(key, BOOTCFG_CMD_LOAD, 4)) {
- command(BOOTCFG_CMD_LOAD, value);
} else if (!strncmp(key, "format", 6)) {
printf("value:%c\n", *value);
switch (*value) {
@@ -251,8 +249,6 @@ perform_bootcfg(const char *conf, bootcf
}
} else if (!strncmp(key, "clear", 5)) {
bootcfg_info.clear = !!atoi(value);
- } else if (!strncmp(key, BOOTCFG_CMD_USERCONF, 8)) {
- command(BOOTCFG_CMD_USERCONF, value);
} else {
command(key, value);
}
Were these branches already dead code? Are they _now_ dead code on
x86, but possibly would have been still live on non-x86 bootloaders?
Can you expand on how this change works and what you did to test it?
As a general rule, I think we should post bootloader changes for
review to tech-kern@ and relevant port-*@ before committing, because
they are so high-risk. It would also be good to state in the commit
message what testing has been done.
