christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas) writes: > On Apr 3, 7:57am, mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost (matthew green) wrote: > -- Subject: re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe > > | kernel configuration changes are not solutions, so 2 and 3 are out. > | > | if we do 4, we should instead add an option to mark something as a > | 'soft root', and leave the current semantics alone. the machines i > | have that are now not going to reboot properly are both used > | remotely, so changing semantics about how they work seems like a > | bad idea. i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who does this. > | i think i like this the best. > > Sure, we can add -A softroot. Do we want to rename the current option > to -A hardroot? If that's the consensus, I can go ahead. Why don't you just leave the current one alone, and not change the name? The names only mean what the docs say, and -A root says "and make this root, period" in the docs, which is not unsurprising for "-A root". Having "-A softroot" or "-A condroot" to mean "make this root if the existing root is a component" sounds good. This way the only people that will see new behavior are those that configure -A softroot, and I think that's a good goal.
Description: PGP signature