Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?

[Jesper Juhl]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, William Park wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:45:53AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > William Park wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 01:25:32PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 07:59:22PM -0500, William Park wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 10:23:34PM +0100, Andreas Unterkircher wrote:
> > > > > > [1] http://www.xenotime.net/linux/usb/usbboot-2422.patch
> ...
> > > http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/patch@xxxxxxxxxxx?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-3w|cset@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > > 
> > > Hi Marcelo,
> > > 
> > > 1.  Actually, my patch above loops every 5s to reduce screen clutter,
> > >     whereas the original 2.4 patch (cited by Andreas Unterkircher) loops
> > >     every 1s.  Both loops forever.
> > > 
> > >     But, if a limit of 10 tries is what you want, then here is a patch
> > >     for 2.6.10:
> > 
> > I agree with you that reducing screen clutter is a good thing. How
> > about something like this that waits for 10+ seconds so even slow
> > devices have a chance to get up but also does some primitive
> > ratelimiting on the messages by only printing one every 3 seconds (but
> > still attempting to mount every 1 sec) ? 
> 
> Hi Jesper,
> 
> I prefer countdown with short message.  The 2.4 messages are too long.
> Incorporating your use of ssleep() and printk() loglevel, here is
> the latest iteration:
> 
> --- ./init/do_mounts.c--orig	2004-12-27 17:36:35.000000000 -0500
> +++ ./init/do_mounts.c	2004-12-30 22:43:57.000000000 -0500
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  #include <linux/suspend.h>
>  #include <linux/root_dev.h>
>  #include <linux/security.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>  
>  #include <linux/nfs_fs.h>
>  #include <linux/nfs_fs_sb.h>
> @@ -278,6 +279,7 @@
>  	char *fs_names = __getname();
>  	char *p;
>  	char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
> +	int tryagain = 20;
>  
Ok, I'm nitpicking here, but why int and not short? are we likely to ever
want to wait for more than 2 minutes? and if we want to wait ~3min, then
unsigned short should do just fine (and unsigned would even be logical
since negative retry value doesn't make any sense)....


> +		if (--tryagain) {

I think if  (tryagain--)  makes more sense. You set tryagain to 20 thereby 
implying that we will be doing 20 retries, but with --tryagain we will 
only be doing 19 retries, not 20 - with tryagain-- we will be doing the 
nr. of retries that we initially initialize 'tryagain' to.

other than that (and it /is/ nitpicking) the patch looks good to me.


-- 
Jesper Juhl


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/