On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > On 07/31/13 at 04:31pm, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > On 07/31/2013 04:29 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:25:57PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: > > > > > > Hi Harald, > > > > > > Do you still like the parameter name "rd.action_on_fail". I think a new > > > parameter say, "rd.no_emergecny_shell" might make more sense to reflect > > > what we are doing. > > > > > > If you like it, I can request bao to post a new patch and make appropriate > > > changes. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Vivek > > > > > > > You can add the rd.no_emergency_shell parser in your kdump module and touch the > > marker file. I think that gives you more flexibility for runtime decisions. > > You can just add and remove that file on will. > Hi Vivek, > > I agree with Harald, there's no need to add a parameter into dracut any > more. Because currently only 2 actions are taken, 1 is emergency-shell, > the other is continue. We can just put a file as switch, if the file exists, > all failed action doesn't trigger emergency shell before Kdump, just > continue. > > If you want several more actions, E.g reboot or others, we can put them > into this file. Then in Kdump module, we can read the content and parse. > As for modules before Kdump, they don't feel it. I think this can extend > the 'default action' flexibly. This keep our reliability on dracut at the > least. > > How do you think about it? Bao, Ok, status quo is fine for the time being. Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
