Re: Suspend 2 merge: 49/51: Checksumming

Nigel Cunningham
2004-11-30T21:49:18Z

Hi.

On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 00:07, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Mmm. I wonder how much code that would require us to add. I do like the
> > idea of not interacting where the answer is obvious :>. I still think,
> > however, that interacting when the answer isn't obvious is the right
> > thing to do. Take for example the case where we find an image, but the
> > device numbers look like they belong to 2.4 and we're a 2.6 kernel. We
> > can't read the header (we can't be sure that this is the cause). The
> > user - or their cat - might have selected the wrong boot image
> > unintentionally. Why shouldn't we give them the opportunity to reboot
> > and get the right one?
>
> Well, kernel depending on user feedback has some interesting issues...
> ...like user not speaking english or user using speech output.
> Thats why pushing "Shall I reboot?" etc prompts into userland
> is good idea. (Distros probably will not get it right, either, but at least
> they get a chance.)

And if we don't have userspace yet? (No initrd/initramfs).

The language issue is a good point; the whole issue of kernel messages
and languages needs a more general solution.

It probably also helps to remember the point to this:
- avoid file system corruption
- give the user a chance to confirm/fix actions that look wrong

Would making interaction a compile time option make you happy? (That
said, I'm not looking forward to trying to guess what the system should
do in some of these cases if not allowed to ask).

Regards,

Nigel
--
Nigel Cunningham
Pastoral Worker
Christian Reformed Church of Tuggeranong
PO Box 1004, Tuggeranong, ACT 2901

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ
died for the ungodly. -- Romans 5:6