From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Berra Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] booting a dm+lvm2 kernel Message-ID: <20040101233902.GG21031@percy.comedia.it> References: <20040101184805.GA10139@percy.comedia.it> <1072993242.6220.12.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> <20040101224529.GD21031@percy.comedia.it> <1072998611.5199.21.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1072998611.5199.21.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu Jan 1 17:40:01 2004 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christophe Saout Cc: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:10:11AM +0100, Christophe Saout wrote: >I thought you were talking about the lvmcreate_initrd script that came i actually never used lvmcreate_initrd that came with LVM1, >Yes, I've seen redhat doing this. I personally prefer being able to >override it at the command line though. Having something hardcoded in >the initrd sounds strange to me. i agree with your concern, i'll try to get it from the command line >I have attached the script. I parse /proc/cmdline, try to remove root= >using a shell function and if it actually removed something I know that >the rest has to be a device name. :) uhm, you should be wary of the case when a root= is in lilo.conf and luser wants to override it from cmdline. you stop a t the first occurrence. >Wasn't ash the one from busybox? no busybox is a dietlibc compiled shell that already has most command compiled in, so a single executable, and smaller than glibc. >With udev I just created /dev/console and some others. Doing everything >from the script seems unnecessary. i have to, because of tmpfs dev >> My initrd detects if the root VG is on a md (softraid) device and >> starts it before trying to activate the VG. >Doesn't the kernel start them automatically? You mean, if it isn't >activated in the kernel? Probably a good idea. I strongly believe that raid autodetection should be done in user space, possibly with mdadm. There is a big advantage in being able to control what gets activated and when, besides distribution kernels use modular scsi drive modules, so probably autodetection won't work anyway. I also don't have the faintest idea if the kernel deals with stacked raid devices >Yes, that's also possible. But I don't really like it being readonly >because, as you say, mounting something on /etc or /dev is unnecessary. >What's the problem with ext2? The wasted memory? wasted memory and disk space, being able to fit kernel+initrd on a single floppy is a good reason >I would love making the initrd an initramfs. But that doesn't currently i think initramfs is not mature yet. L. -- Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it Communication Media & Services S.r.l. /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \