Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:41:33 +0100 (CET) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem? |
| |
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/
| |