Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?
From: Jesper Juhl (juhl-lkml_at_dif.dk)
Date: 12/31/04
- Previous message: Jesper Juhl: "Re: printk loglevel policy?"
- In reply to: William Park: "Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?"
- Next in thread: Paulo Marques: "Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?"
- Reply: Paulo Marques: "Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:41:33 +0100 (CET) To: William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, William Park wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:45:53AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > William Park wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 01:25:32PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 07:59:22PM -0500, William Park wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 10:23:34PM +0100, Andreas Unterkircher wrote:
> > > > > > [1] http://www.xenotime.net/linux/usb/usbboot-2422.patch
> ...
> > > http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/patch@1.1527.1.20?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-3w|cset@1.1527.1.20
> > >
> > > Hi Marcelo,
> > >
> > > 1. Actually, my patch above loops every 5s to reduce screen clutter,
> > > whereas the original 2.4 patch (cited by Andreas Unterkircher) loops
> > > every 1s. Both loops forever.
> > >
> > > But, if a limit of 10 tries is what you want, then here is a patch
> > > for 2.6.10:
> >
> > I agree with you that reducing screen clutter is a good thing. How
> > about something like this that waits for 10+ seconds so even slow
> > devices have a chance to get up but also does some primitive
> > ratelimiting on the messages by only printing one every 3 seconds (but
> > still attempting to mount every 1 sec) ?
>
> Hi Jesper,
>
> I prefer countdown with short message. The 2.4 messages are too long.
> Incorporating your use of ssleep() and printk() loglevel, here is
> the latest iteration:
>
> --- ./init/do_mounts.c--orig 2004-12-27 17:36:35.000000000 -0500
> +++ ./init/do_mounts.c 2004-12-30 22:43:57.000000000 -0500
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #include <linux/suspend.h>
> #include <linux/root_dev.h>
> #include <linux/security.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>
> #include <linux/nfs_fs.h>
> #include <linux/nfs_fs_sb.h>
> @@ -278,6 +279,7 @@
> char *fs_names = __getname();
> char *p;
> char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
> + int tryagain = 20;
>
Ok, I'm nitpicking here, but why int and not short? are we likely to ever
want to wait for more than 2 minutes? and if we want to wait ~3min, then
unsigned short should do just fine (and unsigned would even be logical
since negative retry value doesn't make any sense)....
> + if (--tryagain) {
I think if (tryagain--) makes more sense. You set tryagain to 20 thereby
implying that we will be doing 20 retries, but with --tryagain we will
only be doing 19 retries, not 20 - with tryagain-- we will be doing the
nr. of retries that we initially initialize 'tryagain' to.
other than that (and it /is/ nitpicking) the patch looks good to me.
-- Jesper Juhl - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Jesper Juhl: "Re: printk loglevel policy?"
- In reply to: William Park: "Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?"
- Next in thread: Paulo Marques: "Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?"
- Reply: Paulo Marques: "Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
