On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:55:08 -0400 Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:37:44 -0400 > > Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:25:05 -0400 > >>> Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> wrote: > .. > >>>> Not forever, just a few seconds to compensate for the regression. > >>> seconds!!!!! > >>> The whole kernel boots in half a second! > >> .. > >> > >> Oh, absolutely I agree. > >> > >> That's why I'm not suggesting a DELAY > >> but rather a TIMEOUT (where it keeps trying up until the timeout). > > > > This exists today. It's just not something Jeff chose to use ;) > > (because he didn't need to) > > > >> For desktop, it should really just wait forever, > >> but I can understand situations (server room) > >> where that would be a Really Bad Idea. > > > > it's called rootwait and such :) > .. > > No, that's not the same thing. > rootwait has no timeout -- it waits *forever*, > which will break auto-recovery on servers. btw while I don't disagree that something like this is nice... .... who would boot their server from a USB stick for production use? -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
