[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002172229.07511.elendil@planet.nl>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:29:05 +0100
From: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To: Gabor Gombas <gombasg@...ikabel.hu>
Cc: Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@...mpydevil.homelinux.org>,
kyle@...fetthome.net, neilb@...e.de, babydr@...y-dragons.com,
davidsen@....com, volkerarmin@...glemail.com,
mjevans1983@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux mdadm superblock question.
On Wednesday 17 February 2010, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:26:46PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > That's simply not true, at least not for Debian. If you actually use
> > the distro tools [1] the only assumptions are made at kernel
> > *installation* time, not at kernel build time.
>
> And that's why network-booted diskless clients and virtual guests have
> all sort of useless modules loaded; the HW where the kernel package was
> installed in this case is very different from the HW where the kernel
> will run.
Interesting use case. But also a use case for which initramfs-tools
probably very simply was never intended.
I agree that in this case you probably want to either
- have a very generic initrd that supports anything (Debian default) [1]
or
- provide a list of modules to include in the initrd based on knowing the
hardware you want to support (e.g. using /etc/initramfs-tools/modules)
and prevent including anything based on the host system.
I've never really done that so I don't know if initramfs-tools has any
features to support that.
> If only there were a switch to prohibit ever looking at the
> current machine's configuration when generating the initramfs...
Did you ever file a wishlist bug report for that?
> > I've been using initramfs-tools generated initrds for years without
> > problems, and that includes "root on LVM on LUKS encrypted partition"
> > and "root on LVM on RAID" setups.
>
> I've tried a couple of times to use a Debian-built initramfs with a
> custom built kernel. The kernel worked fine without an initramfs (it had
> everything built in), but it did not boot with the initramfs.
It's obviously hard to comment on something like this without more details
(which would be off-topic for this list).
[1] Could still leave you with problems if the clients use something fancy
for the root fs that uses info copied from /etc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists