Ok, the version below doesn't look too bad, except a couple things, see
below:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> -__setup("rootfs=", rootfs_setup);
> +__setup("rootfstype=", rootfs_setup);
this is wrong. If the parameter is "rootfstype" then the function is
rootfstype_setup(). Too
(the original got lost
because of the mail-abuse vs btconnect's randomness)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 18 15:20:08 2000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:44:32 + (GMT)
From: Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [patch-2
[Andries Brouwer]
> (i) I prefer "rootfstype". Indeed, "rootfs" is ambiguous.
> It gives some property of the root filesystem, but which?
> (ii) It is a bad idea to arbitrarily select "ext2".
> (iii) [...] Thus, if the boot option rootfstype is given, I prefer a
> boot failure over a kernel
[Tigran Aivazian]
> no, because it would cause a "spurious" call to get_fs_type("") which
> we don't want to happen (by default i.e. -- if user _really_ wants it
> that is ok). The default of "ext2" is fine.
I still disagree -- super.c is no place to dictate the default root
filesystem. And I
From: Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+rootfs=[KNL] Use filesystem type specified (e.g. rootfs=ext2) for
root.
(i) I prefer "rootfstype". Indeed, "rootfs" is ambiguous.
It gives some property of the root filesystem, but which?
+static char rootfs[128]
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Tigran Aivazian]
> > +/* this can be set at boot time, e.g. rootfs=ext2
> > + * if set to invalid value or if read_super() fails on the specified
> > + * filesystem type then mount_root() will go through all registered filesystems.
> > + */
> >
[Tigran Aivazian]
> +/* this can be set at boot time, e.g. rootfs=ext2
> + * if set to invalid value or if read_super() fails on the specified
> + * filesystem type then mount_root() will go through all registered filesystems.
> + */
> +static char rootfs[128] __initdata = "ext2";
Better that
"Tigran Aivazian wrote:"
> In November last year I wrote support for a new boot parameter called
> "rootfs" implementing functionality similar to UnixWare7, i.e. being
> able to specify the filesystem type to try first in mount_root() and if
> this fails then go on to the usual loop over all
Hi Linus,
In November last year I wrote support for a new boot parameter called
"rootfs" implementing functionality similar to UnixWare7, i.e. being
able to specify the filesystem type to try first in mount_root() and if
this fails then go on to the usual loop over all registered filesystems.
Hi Linus,
In November last year I wrote support for a new boot parameter called
"rootfs" implementing functionality similar to UnixWare7, i.e. being
able to specify the filesystem type to try first in mount_root() and if
this fails then go on to the usual loop over all registered filesystems.
"Tigran Aivazian wrote:"
In November last year I wrote support for a new boot parameter called
"rootfs" implementing functionality similar to UnixWare7, i.e. being
able to specify the filesystem type to try first in mount_root() and if
this fails then go on to the usual loop over all
[Tigran Aivazian]
+/* this can be set at boot time, e.g. rootfs=ext2
+ * if set to invalid value or if read_super() fails on the specified
+ * filesystem type then mount_root() will go through all registered filesystems.
+ */
+static char rootfs[128] __initdata = "ext2";
Better that we
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Tigran Aivazian]
+/* this can be set at boot time, e.g. rootfs=ext2
+ * if set to invalid value or if read_super() fails on the specified
+ * filesystem type then mount_root() will go through all registered filesystems.
+ */
+static char
From: Tigran Aivazian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+rootfs=[KNL] Use filesystem type specified (e.g. rootfs=ext2) for
root.
(i) I prefer "rootfstype". Indeed, "rootfs" is ambiguous.
It gives some property of the root filesystem, but which?
+static char rootfs[128] __initdata
[Tigran Aivazian]
no, because it would cause a "spurious" call to get_fs_type("") which
we don't want to happen (by default i.e. -- if user _really_ wants it
that is ok). The default of "ext2" is fine.
I still disagree -- super.c is no place to dictate the default root
filesystem. And I
btconnect's randomness)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 18 15:20:08 2000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:44:32 + (GMT)
From: Tigran Aivazian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [patch-2.4.0-test13-pre3] rootfs boot param. support
On Mon, 18 De
[Andries Brouwer]
(i) I prefer "rootfstype". Indeed, "rootfs" is ambiguous.
It gives some property of the root filesystem, but which?
(ii) It is a bad idea to arbitrarily select "ext2".
(iii) [...] Thus, if the boot option rootfstype is given, I prefer a
boot failure over a kernel attempt
Ok, the version below doesn't look too bad, except a couple things, see
below:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
-__setup("rootfs=", rootfs_setup);
+__setup("rootfstype=", rootfs_setup);
this is wrong. If the parameter is "rootfstype" then the function is
rootfstype_setup(). Too
18 matches
Mail list logo
