new dev_t printable convention and lilo
{pts/2}% cat /proc/cmdline
BOOT_IMAGE=260-t3smp2 ro root=345 devfs=mount
I guess it has to use 03:45 now? Does it mean lilo has to be updated to handle new convention?
-andrey
Quoted 7 lines · Andrey Borzenkov
{pts/2}% cat
/proc/cmdline
BOOT_IMAGE=260-t3smp2 ro root=345 devfs=mountI guess it has to use 03:45 now? Does it mean lilo has to be updated to handle new convention?
I think we need to teach the parsing code to handle both styles.
It's a bit of a screwup.
-----Original Message-----
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines · Andrey Borzenkov
{pts/2}% cat
/proc/cmdline
BOOT_IMAGE=260-t3smp2 ro root=345 devfs=mount
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I guess it has to use 03:45 now? Does it mean lilo has to be updated to handle new convention?
I think we need to teach the parsing code to handle both styles.
It's a bit of a screwup.
sorry for late reply.
I was wrong, the code that actually uses root= was unaffected.
It happens in name_to_dev_t:
if (strncmp(name, "/dev/", 5) != 0) {
res = (dev_t) simple_strtoul(name, &p, 16); if (*p)
goto fail;
goto done;
}
it means handle-old-dev_t is meaningless and has to be removed ; and if we want people to use new format, it needs to go into name_to_dev_t.
sorry for confusion :(
Quoted 11 lines · Andrey Borzenkov
It happens in
name_to_dev_t:(quoted diff) +0
-0if (strncmp(name, "/dev/", 5) != 0) { res = (dev_t) simple_strtoul(name, &p, 16); if (*p) goto fail; goto done; }it means handle-old-dev_t is meaningless and has to be removed ; and if we want people to use new format, it needs to go into
name_to_dev_t.
It's better to handle both isn't it?
25-akpm/init/do_mounts.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
init/do_mounts.c renamed from init/do_mounts.c~handle-old-dev_t-format +21 -9
@@ -71,13 +71,19 @@ static dev_t __init try_name(char *name,if (len <=0 || len ==32 || buf[len -1 ] !='\n' ) goto fail; buf[len -1 ] ='\0' ; -/* -* The format of dev is now %u:%u -- see print_dev_t() -*/ -if (sscanf (buf,"%u:%u" , &maj, &min) ==2 ) +if (sscanf (buf,"%u:%u" , &maj, &min) ==2 ) { +/* +* Try the %u:%u format -- see print_dev_t() +*/ res =MKDEV (maj, min); -else - goto fail; + }else { +/* +* Nope. Try old-style "0321" +*/ + res = (dev_t )simple_strtoul (buf, &s,16 ); +if (*s) + goto fail; + }/* if it's there and we are not looking for a partition - that's it */ if (!part)
@@ -135,9 +141,15 @@ dev_t name_to_dev_t(char *name) goto out;if (strncmp (name,"/dev/" ,5 ) !=0 ) { - res = (dev_t )simple_strtoul (name, &p,16 ); -if (*p) - goto fail; +unsigned maj, min; + +if (sscanf (name,"%u:%u" , &maj, &min) ==2 ) { + res =MKDEV (maj, min); + }else { + res = (dev_t )simple_strtoul (name, &p,16 ); +if (*p) + goto fail; + } goto done; } name +=5 ;
_
[...]
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
it means handle-old-dev_t is meaningless and has to be removed ; and if we want people to use new format, it needs to go into
name_to_dev_t.It's better to handle both isn't it?
is /sys/block/<name>/dev ever going to be in old format except if due to a bug?