From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for August 27 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:38:38 +0200 Message-ID: <200808311538.38918.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <20080827183453.eb651f50.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200808292123.07246.bzolnier@gmail.com> <48B90E81.5060905@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.191]:26718 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757438AbYHaOfP (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:35:15 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so1569585muf.1 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:35:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <48B90E81.5060905@kernel.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Jens Axboe , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Ingo Molnar , dm-devel@redhat.com On Saturday 30 August 2008, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > > Actually it seems that CONFIG_DEBUG_BLOCK_EXT_DEVT introduction (which I > > think is a nice step forward) is a good oportunity to put the deprecation > > of the default root device further, i.e. it may be worth to hook the > > default root device check and/or CONFIG_DEBUG_BLOCK_EXT_DEVT one into > > mount_block_root(). > > Maybe we can add a warning there if BLOCK_EXT_DEVT is enabled or do > you have something else on mind? Yes, this is would be nice, having warning on using the default root device (instead of "root=") would be even nicer. Thanks, Bart