Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:45:29 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: possible mountroot regression Message-ID: <E2FDBF46-8DA6-4D13-B5B5-7EB22C220F9D@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <4E5B4BFB.9040907@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E580B14.7090208@FreeBSD.org> <1A828073-1D5F-4850-9379-4AB62CF3DAE3@xcllnt.net> <4E5B4BFB.9040907@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 29, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 27/08/2011 18:16 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: >>=20 >> On Aug 26, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> It seems that after the introduction of the mountroot scripting = language a user >>> now has exactly one chance to try to specify a correct root device = at the >>> mountroot prompt. I am not sure that that is convenient/enough. >>=20 >> This is no different from before. >=20 > Are you sure? > I remember trying multiple (incorrect) possibilities at the prompt and = not > getting the panic. But I know that sometimes I have cases of "false = memories", > so _I_ am not sure. I'm sure now that we're both not sure :-) It's possible the failure mode varied by how the root mount failed... --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E2FDBF46-8DA6-4D13-B5B5-7EB22C220F9D>