Re: [PATCH] Change the implementation of action_on_fail

[Vivek Goyal <vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 07/31/13 at 04:31pm, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > On 07/31/2013 04:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:25:57PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Harald,
> > > 
> > > Do you still like the parameter name "rd.action_on_fail". I think a new
> > > parameter say, "rd.no_emergecny_shell" might make more sense to reflect
> > > what we are doing.
> > > 
> > > If you like it, I can request bao to post a new patch and make appropriate
> > > changes.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Vivek
> > > 
> > 
> > You can add the rd.no_emergency_shell parser in your kdump module and touch the
> > marker file. I think that gives you more flexibility for runtime decisions.
> > You can just add and remove that file on will.
> Hi Vivek,
> 
> I agree with Harald, there's no need to add a parameter into dracut any
> more. Because currently only 2 actions are taken, 1 is emergency-shell,
> the other is continue. We can just put a file as switch, if the file exists,
> all failed action doesn't trigger emergency shell before Kdump, just
> continue. 
> 
> If you want several more actions, E.g reboot or others, we can put them
> into this file. Then in Kdump module, we can read the content and parse.
> As for modules before Kdump, they don't feel it. I think this can extend
> the 'default action' flexibly. This keep our reliability on dracut at the
> least.
> 
> How do you think about it?

Bao,

Ok, status quo is fine for the time being.

Thanks
Vivek