Evan Layton wrote:
> Joseph J VLcek wrote:
>> Evan Layton wrote:
>>> Joseph J VLcek wrote:
>>>> Evan Layton wrote:
>>>>> Evan Layton wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Miner wrote:
>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>> I'd really like to figure out a means of not hard-coding the
>>>>>>>>> boilerplate stuff that you have in be_create_menu(), though.
>>>>>>>> I would to but so far I don't know of anywhere I can grab this
>>>>>>>> information from if there isn't already a menu.lst file. Any ideas
>>>>>>>> here would be a huge help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There probably isn't since ict.py also has it hardcoded, and thus we
>>>>>>> should invent something so that the results of an initial install and
>>>>>>> this recovery are approximately the same. Something like a
>>>>>>> menu.preamble that could be copied into place might do the trick.
>>>>>> Hi Dave and Joe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I have right now is a call to system() that calls the ict to fill
>>>>>> in the menu.lst. Then I fill in the BE entries and figure out which BE
>>>>>> is the currently active BE and use system("bootadm set-menu
>>>>>> default=%d") based on which be is currently active. This results in a
>>>>>> rebuilt menu.lst that appears to be accurate. However this does
>>>>>> require that I call the ict to create the initial menu.lst file with
>>>>>> the first three lines which still leaves us with the hard coded lines
>>>>>> in ict.py. Should we place this menu.preamble file someplace and then
>>>>>> use it for both libbe and ict.py?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> -evan
>>>>>>
>>>>> I neglect to mention that I updated the webrev with the changes so far
>>>>> to use as a reference...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/5221/
>>>>>
>>>>> -evan
>>>>>
>>>> I think, since ICT is the single point of access to this info, having a
>>>> menu.preamble file is less important.
>>>>
>>>> If BE uses ICT and it is felt the menu.preamble is needed then the only
>>>> code that would need to change is ICT.
>>>>
>>>> So I think Evan should move forward with this implementation. If others
>>>> feel a menu.preamble has benefits then let's file a bug against ICT to
>>>> use the menu.preamble.
>>>>
>>>> Evan I noticed you took this off caiman-discuss. Guessing that was by
>>>> accident. I'm sending it back out to c-d.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>> There was a sparc issue that I had failed to account for. I've fixed that
>>> and
>>> updated the webrev for that as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -evan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>> Evan,
>>
>> Summary of our phone conversation:
>>
>> In looking at the webrev I got an idea. Why not create a function which
>> does both the attempt to open and if that fails then the attempt to
>> create. What I am envisioning is a open( read|create ) type of thing.
>
> Definitely a good idea. I've removed all this duplicate code and created
> be_open_menu that now does this. I also moved the error message mentioned
> below
> into this new function and corrected the message.
>
> I also realized while going through this that I was setting the default wrong
> in
> the menu.lst file. I was setting it based on the currently active BE and not
> the
> active on reboot BE which is what it should have been. I fixed this as well.
>
> I've updated the webrev to reflect these changes.
>
>> Also the error message, example on line 367, should be reworded since if
>> the open fails the code attempts to create the file.
>>
>> Hope this helps. Joe
>
> It definitely does help! :-)
>
> -evan
As per our phone conversation I've added the comments around those places that
we call be_has_grub to state that this is being called to check for grub
support.
I also added a warning message that will always be printed out when we create
the new menu file.
I've updated the webrev to reflect these as well as any other comments I've
received to this point.
Thanks!
-evan
