Hi Sascha, > I would find this message more useful from the new, updated barebox > rather than from the barebox that does the update. This way we could > also see the message with offline updates when for example a SD > card has been updated on an external host. Also we would have more > freedom to react on an outdated environment in the next steps. We could > for example make it configurable to completely ignore an outdated > environment or just to issue a warning message. > Doing this should be fairly simple, we could store the barebox version > in a nv variable and compare the variable with the current version > during startup. > > What do you think? This would solve the issue for our users. If I understand you correctly, this approach is different from a separate versioning of the environment data, since the barebox verison in UTS_RELEASE is written to the nv variable. So nobody can forget to increase the version number of the environment and a warning message is printing to the user as a new barebox with a different version is flashed. I looked at the code a bit. The first step would be to write the version of the running barebox into environment in the function envfs_save() and compare the version in the function envfs_load(). Correct? In envfs_load() the warning message would be printed. But we cannot interrupt the boot sequence and ask the user whether he/she wants to use the old environment or use the default environment, because the default boot process must be non-interactive. So only a warning can be printed, right? Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards, Stefan Christ On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 03:52:41PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:20:08PM +0200, Stefan Christ wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > *ping, is this patch acceptable? > > I thought about this again. > > I would find this message more useful from the new, updated barebox > rather than from the barebox that does the update. This way we could > also see the message with offline updates when for example a SD > card has been updated on an external host. Also we would have more > freedom to react on an outdated environment in the next steps. We could > for example make it configurable to completely ignore an outdated > environment or just to issue a warning message. > Doing this should be fairly simple, we could store the barebox version > in a nv variable and compare the variable with the current version > during startup. > > What do you think? > > Sascha > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
