[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#44196: [PATCH 2/3] system: Add store-directory-prefix to boot-parame
From: |
Miguel Ángel Arruga Vivas |
Subject: |
bug#44196: [PATCH 2/3] system: Add store-directory-prefix to boot-parameters. |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Nov 2020 19:52:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> (Btrfs no0b here.) Does that mean that /gnu is like a bind-mount of
> /gnufs in this case?
Yes, it's exactly like that for the end user, but that use case isn't
implemented yet---it should be useful too for the Hurd and
translators---so I have it under my radar.
> Anyway, I think I got it now, but I feel I’ll have to search again for
> this example next time I stumble upon it. ;-)
I also linked this report on the commit message, as it's a non-trivial
use case and everybody could need as much info as possible if an error
hits---fingers crossed.
>> Writing the last email I though about adding this:
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ;; OS's root file system, so it might be a device path like "/dev/sda3".
>> + ;; The 'store-directory-prefix' field contains #f or the actual path of
>> + ;; the store inside the 'store-device' as seen by GRUB, e.g. it would
>> + ;; contain "/storefs" if the store is located in that subvolume of a btrfs
>> + ;; partition.
>> (root-device boot-parameters-root-device)
>> (bootloader-name boot-parameters-bootloader-name)
>> (bootloader-menu-entries ;list of <menu-entry>
>> boot-parameters-bootloader-menu-entries)
>> (store-device boot-parameters-store-device)
>> (store-mount-point boot-parameters-store-mount-point)
>> + (store-directory-prefix boot-parameters-store-directory-prefix)
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> s/path/file name/, but otherwise LGTM.
I've pushed this change as 2df44e934c9ba14a89d9245d1a4f7cf18e8cfdaa with
changes on the rest of the comment as well, as the wording was the same,
as I agree that path should refer to a route (where there could be
several concrete locations/file names in unix dialect), and file name
should be the correct term.
> Thanks for working on these changes!
Thanks to you for the review, for me this is useful in my daily life (as
now I can manage btrfs better too, hehe) and much fun! :-)
Happy hacking!
Miguel