Source-Changes-D archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/raidframe (Christos Zoulas) writes:

> On Apr 3,  7:57am, (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.

Attachment: pgpekZ8DgXone.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index