Re: [PATCH] Artop update

Re: [PATCH] Artop update

[Martin Dalecki]

Franz Sirl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> finally I was able to test the new driver and except for the "return 0 instead 
> of dev-irq" typo all was fine. I added a few minor changes based on the 
> discussion with Vojtech though.

Hey cool!

> The hunk to main.c is needed to be able to boot with DEVFS enabled.

Better just don't do devfs :-). But anyway...

Well I'm planing to add kernel version tagging of fstab line enties
to util-linux. This seems to be the only way to make major/minor
transitions (and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced
that they will be unevitable at some not so distant point in time!)

Something along the lines of:

cat /etc/fstab:

/dev/hdc                /                       ext3    v2.4,defaults    1 1
/dev/sda1 
         /                       ext3    v2.5,defaults    1 1
LABEL=/boot             /boot                   ext3    defaults        1 2
/dev/fd0                /mnt/floppy             auto    noauto,owner    0 0
# /dev/loop1            /mnt/1                  auto    noauto,owner    0 0
# /dev/loop2            /mnt/2                  auto    noauto,owner    0 0
none                    /proc                   proc    defaults        0 0
none                    /tmp                    tmpfs   defaults        0 0
none                    /dev/pts                devpts  gid=5,mode=620  0 0
/dev/hda6               swap                    swap    defaults        0 0


Would be *very* convenient for this purpose and solve 99.9999% percent
of portability problems. Well the above syntax may be the esiest to
imeplement however the below syntax would be perhaps more palatable:

2.5:/dev/sda1 
		/		ext3 ....

Opinnions?

perhaps a similar adjustments would be required for the kernel root parameter of 
course.

With something along
root=2.5:/dev/sda1,2.4:/dev/hdc
one could be living with... The respecive kernel would just pick the entry
which is matching it's version and be fine.

Re: [PATCH] Artop update

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 07:30:33PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Franz Sirl wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > finally I was able to test the new driver and except for the "return 0 instead 
> > of dev-irq" typo all was fine. I added a few minor changes based on the 
> > discussion with Vojtech though.
> 
> Hey cool!
> 
> > The hunk to main.c is needed to be able to boot with DEVFS enabled.
> 
> Better just don't do devfs :-). But anyway...
> 
> Well I'm planing to add kernel version tagging of fstab line enties
> to util-linux. This seems to be the only way to make major/minor
> transitions (and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced
> that they will be unevitable at some not so distant point in time!)
> 
> Something along the lines of:
> 
> cat /etc/fstab:
> 
> /dev/hdc                /                       ext3    v2.4,defaults    1 1
> /dev/sda1 
>          /                       ext3    v2.5,defaults    1 1
> LABEL=/boot             /boot                   ext3    defaults        1 2
> /dev/fd0                /mnt/floppy             auto    noauto,owner    0 0
> # /dev/loop1            /mnt/1                  auto    noauto,owner    0 0
> # /dev/loop2            /mnt/2                  auto    noauto,owner    0 0
> none                    /proc                   proc    defaults        0 0
> none                    /tmp                    tmpfs   defaults        0 0
> none                    /dev/pts                devpts  gid=5,mode=620  0 0
> /dev/hda6               swap                    swap    defaults        0 0
> 
> 
> Would be *very* convenient for this purpose and solve 99.9999% percent
> of portability problems. Well the above syntax may be the esiest to
> imeplement however the below syntax would be perhaps more palatable:
> 
> 2.5:/dev/sda1 
> 		/		ext3 ....
> 
> Opinnions?

I don't like this much - while it solves a setup where you use both
kernels, it isn't solving a 2.4->2.5 transition for not-really-skilled
users. I think Linus's way is the best here - provide both /dev/sda, ...
and provide also major/minor aliases (which will go away later) as
/dev/hd*

> perhaps a similar adjustments would be required for the kernel root parameter of 
> course.
> 
> With something along
> root=2.5:/dev/sda1,2.4:/dev/hdc
> one could be living with... The respecive kernel would just pick the entry
> which is matching it's version and be fine.

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs

Re: [PATCH] Artop update

[Franz Sirl]

On Friday 31 May 2002 19:30, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Franz Sirl wrote:
> > The hunk to main.c is needed to be able to boot with DEVFS enabled.
>
> Better just don't do devfs :-). But anyway...

I like it :-)

> Well I'm planing to add kernel version tagging of fstab line enties
> to util-linux. This seems to be the only way to make major/minor
> transitions (and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced
> that they will be unevitable at some not so distant point in time!)
>
> Something along the lines of:
>
> cat /etc/fstab:
>
> /dev/hdc                /                       ext3    v2.4,defaults    1
> 1 /dev/sda1
>          /                       ext3    v2.5,defaults    1 1
> LABEL=/boot             /boot                   ext3    defaults        1 2
> /dev/fd0                /mnt/floppy             auto    noauto,owner    0 0
> # /dev/loop1            /mnt/1                  auto    noauto,owner    0 0
> # /dev/loop2            /mnt/2                  auto    noauto,owner    0 0
> none                    /proc                   proc    defaults        0 0
> none                    /tmp                    tmpfs   defaults        0 0
> none                    /dev/pts                devpts  gid=5,mode=620  0 0
> /dev/hda6               swap                    swap    defaults        0 0
>
>
> Would be *very* convenient for this purpose and solve 99.9999% percent
> of portability problems. Well the above syntax may be the esiest to
> imeplement however the below syntax would be perhaps more palatable:
>
> 2.5:/dev/sda1
> 		/		ext3 ....
>
> Opinnions?

Well, the only time I would need something like that is for label/id-less 
stuff, with swap being the most annyoing one for me.

> perhaps a similar adjustments would be required for the kernel root
> parameter of course.

Actually I would love to see something like root=LABEL:root_rh_on_40G on the 
commandline.

Franz.