Re: [PATCH 1/2] meta-ostro-fixes: initramfs-framework: add retry loop for slow boot devices (like USB)

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 12:17 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 11:35 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> Hello Ross,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >> > Agreed but please split the rootfs in another module; so we don't
> >> > force it to be included. The e2fs can rdepend on it.
> >>
> >> I noticed this has been merged but my comment here was totally ignored. Why?
> >
> > I can't speak for Ross, but perhaps he felt that it was already a
> > worthwhile improvement. I wanted to address your comment (and still do),
> > but didn't find the time last week. I'll do it via another patch now,
> > okay?
> 
> Ok but Ross action is wrong in my opinion, in worse case he should
> have asked before. If comments are ignored there is no point in people
> spend time doing so.
> 
> I wanted the change to be atomic and not two changes which may
> required more rework for same logic change. :-(

It turned out to be just a mistake that it was already merge.

On the other hand, one can also argue that these are two separate
logical changes - adding the retry loop, and then making that code just
the optional default implementation for mounting.

Anyway, see "initramfs-framework: make rootfs module optional" for that
second part. Note that I did not make e2fs depend on rootfs, because
there's no real connection between the two (for example, the rootfs
could also be btrfs). Instead it is the finish script which depends on
some kind of rootfs mounting.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.