Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-13916-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <93564d28-5c56-6c8e-3052-0171c2bef43b@landley.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2024 11:48:25 -0600
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rootfs: Fix support for rootfstype= when root= is
 given
Content-Language: en-US
To: Askar Safin <safinaskar@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
 initramfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 stable@vger.kernel.org, zohar@linux.ibm.com
References: <CAPnZJGDcNwPLbzC99qNQ+bRMwxPU-Z0xe=TD6DWQU=0MNyeftA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d4b227de-d609-aef2-888b-203dbcf06707@landley.net>
 <CAPnZJGBeV-E_AN8GnTfkaJvRtBmCeMYYCt+O0XMsc3kDULRuKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fb776d99-1956-4e1b-9afc-84f27ca40f46@linux.ibm.com>
 <0879141d-462c-7e94-7c87-7a5b5422b8ed@landley.net>
 <e32077de-b159-4a7b-89a3-e1925239142f@linux.ibm.com>
 <fcb45898-0699-878f-0656-f570607fbed4@landley.net>
 <CAPnZJGBdwSBeKUK-An8n-eDJdrrA-rnKPMX16cFDfwx8wxQiwA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPnZJGBdwSBeKUK-An8n-eDJdrrA-rnKPMX16cFDfwx8wxQiwA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 12/30/23 18:46, Askar Safin wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 8:01 PM Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:
>> You want to add a new capability requiring a new build dependency in the
> 
> Rob, who are you telling this to? To Stefan? It seems he doesn't
> propose any further changes. *I* did propose changes (i. e. adding
> rdrootfstype=), and I already wrote that I will not pursue further

I was trying to make sure we can support the motivating use case, and that there
aren't any actual blockers with the current API.

I don't ask things like "Do I have that right?" sarcastically: I am periodically
wrong about stuff. You all know your use case(s) better than I do, and I may not
have understood your attempt to communicate it to me.

I get a bit exasperated at "this thing that's been there for 10 years could
instead have been like this" because I think changing established kernel api is
_conceptually_ expensive (either we broke the old one or now we have to support
two), but "I still can't figure out how to make X work" means somebody still
needs help (up to and including actually motivating an API change, but more
commonly some userspace design work and/or a documentation update).

Thank you for clarifying. It looks like we're good here for the moment.

Rob