On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:29:24 +0100 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 16.12.19 12:24, Thomas Huth wrote: > > Note: I've marked the patch as RFC since I'm not quite sure whether > > this is really the right way to address this issue: It's unfortunate > > that we have to mess with different location in ZIPL which might also > > change again in the future. As suggested by Christian on IRC last week, > > maybe it would make more sense to change ZIPL to add this parameter > > already when zipl is installed (i.e. by the Linux userspace "zipl" pro- > > gram), instead of adding it during boot time? Also, the BOOT_IMAGE para- > > meter on s390x is quite different from the BOOT_IMAGE paramter that is > > used on x86 - while s390x only uses one single number here, the x86 > > variant (added by grub2, I guess) uses the boot device + full filename > > of the kernel on the boot partition. Should we maybe make the s390x > > variant more conform to x86? If so, I think this really has to be fixed > > in zipl userspace tool, and not in the s390-ccw bios (and zipl stage3 > > bootloader). > > Yes, I actually think we should revisit the whole BOOT_IMAGE scheme on s390. > Maybe we should use the kernel name, or the name of the boot menu entry. > And maybe we should not use 0 (when the default is running) but instead > really use to what 0 points to. Probably dumb question: Is booting via the s390-ccw bios the only time we boot without going through zipl? What about e.g. booting from the reader under z/VM? There's probably no BOOT_IMAGE= statement there, either?
