Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Removed suggestion to use root dataset as bootfs #8247

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 9, 2019
Merged

Removed suggestion to use root dataset as bootfs #8247

merged 1 commit into from Jan 9, 2019

Conversation

GregorKopka
Copy link
Contributor

@GregorKopka GregorKopka commented Jan 7, 2019 •
edited

Motivation and Context

The dracut howto proposed to boot from the root dataset of a pool.

Apart from this giving problems when booting (as the code seems to expect a child dataset and creates an illegal dataset name when using the root dataset) the technical limitations of the root dataset (among others the inability to rename or destroy through the zfs subcommand) lead to the general consensus that it's best to only use it as a container for the datasets in the pool - not as a filesystem itself.

Description

Removed the idea to boot from the root dataset from the dracut howto.

How Has This Been Tested?

Documentation change.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
  • Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

@GregorKopka
Removed suggestion to use root dataset as bootfs
027de1c 
The dracut howto proposed to boot from the root dataset of a pool.
Apart from this giving problems when booting (as the code seems to
expect a child dataset and creates an illegal dataset name when using
the root dataset) the technical limitations of the root dataset
(among others the inability to rename or destroy through the `zfs`
command) resulted in the general consensus to only use it as a
container for the datasets in the pool - not as a filesystem itself.

Removed the idea to boot from the root dataset.

Signed-off-by: Gregor Kopka <gregor@kopka.net>
@behlendorf behlendorf added Type: Documentation Indicates a requested change to the documentation Status: Design Review Needed Architecture or design is under discussion labels Jan 7, 2019
bunder2015
bunder2015 approved these changes Jan 7, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@bunder2015 bunder2015 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm all for this because of bugs like #1548 (although I wish we could close one that instead)

@behlendorf behlendorf added Status: Accepted Ready to integrate (reviewed, tested) and removed Status: Design Review Needed Architecture or design is under discussion labels Jan 8, 2019
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 8, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #8247 into master will decrease coverage by 0.1%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8247      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.46%   78.35%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         379      379              
  Lines      114924   114924              
==========================================
- Hits        90176    90050     -126     
- Misses      24748    24874     +126
Flag Coverage Δ
#kernel 78.74% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
#user 67.58% <ø> (+0.09%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c87db59...027de1c. Read the comment docs.

@GregorKopka
Copy link
Contributor Author

Removing 6 lines from a non-code file results in not building and decreased coverage... I'm confused.

gmelikov
gmelikov approved these changes Jan 8, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@gmelikov gmelikov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you!

@behlendorf
Copy link
Contributor

Removing 6 lines from a non-code file results in not building and decreased coverage... I'm confused.

The kernel issue is unrelated, the (slightly) decreased coverage is because the testing isn't entirely deterministic. Nothing to see here.

@behlendorf behlendorf merged commit 8bd2a28 into openzfs:master Jan 9, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@behlendorf behlendorf behlendorf approved these changes

@gmelikov gmelikov gmelikov approved these changes

@bunder2015 bunder2015 bunder2015 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Status: Accepted Ready to integrate (reviewed, tested) Type: Documentation Indicates a requested change to the documentation
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@GregorKopka @behlendorf @gmelikov @bunder2015