Re: NFS why root=nfs and root=nfs4?

[Warren Togami <wtogami-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 06/22/2009 11:48 PM, David Dillow wrote:
>> This is a difference in design philosophy.  We have a native syntax that
>> seems fully feature capable.  Allowing redundancy and variation in this
>> syntax can confuse people less technically savvy than us who follow
>> documentation and examples.
>
> The people that do "config by example" are going to find the old HOWTOs
> that discuss using nfsroot.txt syntax. A current search for "linux nfs
> root" returns the NFS-root mini-HOWTO (circa 1996) and
> Diskless-root-NFS-other-HOWTO (circa 2001) as the top two results. In
> fact 5 of the top 6 results refer to the nfsroot.txt syntax and the
> sixth one refers one to the NFS-root mini-HOWTO for the kernel command
> line setup.

Isn't arguing over this moot?  I already said this is a reasonable 
compromise because of the upstream kernel and initramfs-tools.

None of those other documents however will have root=nfs, root=nfs4 or 
root=/dev/nfs4 examples.  I object to more confusing variations like 
this redundant to the preferred, full featured native syntax.

> Or is this both of us arguing from our gut and we'll have to disagree
> until Harald lays down the law about syntactic support?
>

Harald was in favor of removing the three "shortcut" variations of 
Legacy nfsroot.txt.  He also said I could go ahead and eliminate the 
netroot= variations if I felt strongly about it.  I do hope he would 
make his own comments on this matter.

I will still push chopping either root= or netroot= NFS variations, but 
only after we see what Harald decides to do for DHCP root-path for 
remote block devices (his iscsi idea).

Warren Togami
wtogami-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html