From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751937AbbIQSF3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 -0400 Received: from mail.cmpwn.com ([45.56.77.53]:37296 "EHLO mail.cmpwn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751488AbbIQSF2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Failover root devices To: Richard Weinberger , Richard Weinberger References: <55FAA6BB.3060008@odi.ch> <20150917114955.GA2600@homura> <55FAFD1D.8030305@cmpwn.com> <55FAFDE1.2020707@nod.at> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ortwin_Gl=c3=bcck?= , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" From: Drew DeVault Message-ID: <55FB00E6.3090801@cmpwn.com> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55FAFDE1.2020707@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Better send a patch to dracut folks. :-) > Major distros use it and if the feature is nice other initramfs implementations will adopt it too. dracut is the common one sure, but I'm still not confident that it's the right place to put this. How would that feature look? Would we have the root= parameter use a format that's specific to dracut and no longer a sane kernel parameter? Would we use a second parameter and discard the root= parameter? I think all of these are suboptimal solutions. No, the right way, I think, is to implement this in the kernel and let the init systems take it from there themselves. -- Drew DeVault