From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752632AbbIQSVa (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:21:30 -0400 Received: from mail.cmpwn.com ([45.56.77.53]:37311 "EHLO mail.cmpwn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752200AbbIQSVO (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:21:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Failover root devices To: Richard Weinberger References: <55FAA6BB.3060008@odi.ch> <20150917114955.GA2600@homura> <55FAFD1D.8030305@cmpwn.com> <55FAFDE1.2020707@nod.at> <55FB00E6.3090801@cmpwn.com> <55FB03B8.2000101@nod.at> <55FB03E8.3000604@cmpwn.com> <55FB0441.6040709@nod.at> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ortwin_Gl=c3=bcck?= , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" From: Drew DeVault Message-ID: <55FB0498.9060301@cmpwn.com> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:21:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55FB0441.6040709@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 > Depends on how you patch dracut. ;-) > You can also add a "try_roots=/dev/diskX;/dev/diskY"... That comes back around to my earlier email: >Would we use a second parameter and discard the root= parameter? I >think all of these are suboptimal solutions. I'm not a fan of this idea. What downside is there to implementing it in the kernel? It trickles down in a consistent way and bonus points for supporting systems that don't use an initramfs. -- Drew DeVault