Re: [PATCH 2/7] auto setup network without netroot

[Dave Young <dyoung-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 02/06/2012 02:45 PM, David Dillow wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 15:59 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>> Current dracut network only will be setup when netroot is used. But there are
>> some cases we need network even without netroot. For example kdump will need
>> copy vmcore to remote machine via scp or nfs mount. OTOH, if we use dracut as
>> a recovery system the network is helpful even root is not a network device.
>>
>> This implementation is based on the manually bring up method. Here add a kernel
>> cmdline argument rd.neednet. If rd.neednet is set dracut will bring up network
>> with ifup $INTERFACE -m. If netroot is used we still keep original behavior.
> 
> I'm sorry to keep pitching comments over the fence and running off, but
> $DAYJOB is keeping me busy these days.


No problem, comments are always welcome.

> 
> As one of the guys behind the netroot code -- though it's been a long
> while since I've been active on it -- I think you're trying to bandaid
> your needs on top of it, when restructuring is probably needed. We
> didn't really consider other modules needing network access before the
> root is mounted, so there is a bit of melding of the steps.


Seems only I think about using network in shell with rdbreak=cmdline,

> 
> I think you'd have a much cleaner solution splitting out the
> configuration of the network from the network root handling.


I agree this is the better solution.

> Both
> netroot and kdump could then signal that they need network services, and
> you could handle it as it is now -- use ip= if available, fall back to
> dhcp. If no NIC is specified, we try all of them until we can talk to
> our {root,kdump} server. Cong Wang is correct, I seen no reason to add

> new command line arguments.


I think the key problem is the network setup code split. I would not
insist on this although I don't like that we must add ip= to have
network setup

> 
> It's been years since I've really been involved, so I suspect the
> netroot code is due for a cleanup anyway.



-- 
Thanks
Dave