From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 30 10:01:56 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC63106566B; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:01:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE1E8FC1B; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:01:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id NAA25499; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:01:42 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1QyL8X-0004g2-RS; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:01:41 +0300 Message-ID: <4E5CB502.5020508@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:01:38 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110819 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Moolenaar References: <4E580B14.7090208@FreeBSD.org> <1A828073-1D5F-4850-9379-4AB62CF3DAE3@xcllnt.net> <4E5B4BFB.9040907@FreeBSD.org> <4E5BF43A.5050306@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E5BF43A.5050306@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcel Moolenaar , FreeBSD-Current Subject: Re: possible mountroot regression X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:01:56 -0000 So, just to re-iterate, I think that this is indeed a regression and the one that could be particularly unhelpful for a new release - the time when people are much more likely to end up at the mountroot prompt during an installation of a new system or an upgrade. on 29/08/2011 23:19 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 29/08/2011 19:45 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: >> >> On Aug 29, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >>> on 27/08/2011 18:16 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: >>>> >>>> On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It seems that after the introduction of the mountroot scripting language a user >>>>> now has exactly one chance to try to specify a correct root device at the >>>>> mountroot prompt. I am not sure that that is convenient/enough. >>>> >>>> This is no different from before. >>> >>> Are you sure? >>> I remember trying multiple (incorrect) possibilities at the prompt and not >>> getting the panic. But I know that sometimes I have cases of "false memories", >>> so _I_ am not sure. >> >> I'm sure now that we're both not sure :-) >> >> It's possible the failure mode varied by how the root mount >> failed... > > > Judging from the code before r214006 it shouldn't have panic-ed upon such a failure: > static int > vfs_mountroot_ask(void) > { > char name[128]; > char *mountfrom; > char *options; > > for(;;) { > ... > gets(name, sizeof(name), 1); > if (name[0] == '\0') > return (1); > if (name[0] == '?') { > printf("\nList of GEOM managed disk devices:\n "); > g_dev_print(); > continue; > } > if (!vfs_mountroot_try(name, NULL)) > return (0); > } > } > > > So this "endless" loop was exited only if vfs_mountroot_try() returned success > (error == 0) or if a user entered an empty string. > -- Andriy Gapon