Duncan posted on Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:43:26 +0000 as excerpted: > I'm only running an initramfs at all because some kernels ago when I > originally setup my (dual-device raid1 mode) btrfs rootfs, the kernel > command-line parser couldn't properly parse rootflags=device= , > apparently due to splitting at the wrong equal-sign, so the only way I > could mount rootfs direct from the kernel commandline was in degraded > mode. =:^( I'm not sure if that has been fixed or not, but I have the > initramfs setup and working now, so it's not so pressing to find out. > Anyway, I expect that someday I'll be able to omit that and go back to a > direct (initr*less) kernel commandline root=/rootflags= boot.
FWIW, I tested a couple days ago with a current 3.14-rcX+ git kernel, and the kernel commandline parsing issue appears to still be there, so no simple way out of the initr* situation for me yet. =:^( Maybe one of these days I'll go looking into it more intensely, and report a kernel bug if necessary. I wonder if there's some other command I can double-equal check to see if it parses in the right place, and I've not even googled it yet, but that does seem the most likely problem, given that a NON-equals-including rootflags (btrfs' degraded option) was demonstrated to still work in my earlier testing, so the rootflags option is in general working, and btrfs is actually picking up general options passed to it that way. 'Cause it'd sure be nice to be able to just dump this initr* business again! (Hmm, just musing, but as a definite non-coder but an otherwise reasonably advanced gentooer who never-the-less has kernel bug-reporting experience, and who routinely applies patches to other things and occasionally to the kernel as well, and who in very limited circumstances can actually come up with his own patches... I obviously can't get too ambitious about creating my own kernel patches, but I wonder just how difficult it might be to patch the kernel btrfs code to use some other delimiter in place of the equals in "device="... If I could successfully do that just for testing, hopefully conclusively proving my suspicion that the double-equals IS the problem, that would certainly make an actually practical bug report, while just a suspicion... not so much, particularly since I don't have a kernel version where it was known to work in the past, thereby making it a known regression, tho various hints I've seen in comments found on the net suggest that it must have at some point, altho there's also hints that it was some time ago, given the age of some of the comments saying it now doesn't work.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
