On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 07:52 -1000, David Cantrell wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:03 -1000, David Cantrell wrote: > >> Load the SCSI modules earlier for CD/DVD installs on s390. Also, > >> always set up the network interface because you still need that > >> to ssh in and run loader. > > > > There's nothing that seems out of place here in a quick look given the > > surrounding aspect of linuxrc.s390. Has it been tested in the context > > of something more rawhide-ish? Things like insmod instead of modprobe > > jump out at me as potentially problematic. I'm going to have to say I > > have no clue where the Fedora on s390 efforts stand these days. > > Tested on rawhide? No. Tested on rhel5? Yes. These patches are meant > to bring the master branch in line with rhel5-branch. IBM did a lot of > contributions to linuxrc.s390 for 5.3. > > Fedora on s390 is progressing, but slowly. There is an F-9 build now > and koji set up, but things are not quite there yet for regular > development. In the mean time, IBM and myself have been doing > development on the 5.3 nightlies. Things are getting closer though. Okay, sounds sane. I know that your intention was largely syncing, I just wasn't sure how much/if any testing was doable right now. Given that it's s390, lack of testing doesn't imply that we shouldn't get things synced :) > > But taking a step back to some more general thoughts on linuxrc.s390, is > > there an effort to actually get it using the same things we use > > everywhere else? There's a lot of manual module probing instead of > > letting things be done by udev and then manual network configuration > > instead of using NetworkManager. As we've moved more of these bits to > > be common, we really probably need to sit down and rework the entire way > > that the script works. The goal of it is that it takes the place of > > loader/init.c with a few notable and important differences > > * Prompting for information on things like network setup if you don't > > set it in the parm file. This pretty much has to be "custom" for s390 > > and doing it with shell is as easy as anything else > > * Getting modules loaded. We don't do this until in the loader on other > > arches, but we need to do it to get the network up. But we really > > probably want to let udev do it as much as we can > > * Starting the network. Which we do with spawning NetworkManager in the > > "normal" case > > This mirrors a conversation I've had with IBM recently. Personally, I'd > like linuxrc.s390 to go entirely. It's a maintenance nightmare and > init.c can just grow to include s390 code where needed. Not only is > there a different init for the s390 initrd, the initrd itself is > significantly different from the other architectures. Yep. And now that we've bit the bullet and accept a "larger" initrd for most cases, there are people that would actually really like the ssh functionality that we have on s390. > IBM is very interested in reworking the linuxrc.s390 system as well. > For 5.x, they have a nice rewrite that improves the input loops and > module loading. For rawhide, I am at least wanting to get away from > having linuxrc.s390 at all. Even if we keep the linuxrc.s390 script, > reducing it to bare minimum and turning things over to the real init > when we are done are better than what we have now. s390 is such a > special case anyway though, it'll take some more planning. > > Right now, I am happy with IBM improving the init system we have now. > They are far more knowledgeable about their platform than I am. 100% agreed, and to be honest, that was kind of what I was getting at without wanting to explicitly call them out and say "hey, come to the party and let's work to make this suck less" :) Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
