On 12/05/14 at 10:27am, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:06:56PM +0800, WANG Chao wrote:
> Actually, I find some issues about this patch. When rd.iscsi.ibft or
> ip=ibft is specified in 1st kernel cmdline, we must not bring up the
> NIC. Otherwise dracut will die and say it can't handle duplicated ip
> configuration for same device.
> I find hardware iscsi and ibft are very much complicated. I'm thinking
> about we first support the systems booting from hardware iscsi or ibft?
I am fine with handling two separately. But I am assuming hardware iscsi
always uses ibft?
In most the use cases, hardware iscsi uses ibft (/sys/firmware/ibft) or
ibft-like (/sys/firmware/iscsi_bootX). In most of ibft/ibft-like case,
the system is booting from iscsi.
So I figured since the kind of hardware iscsi the customers requested is
hardware iscsi as the boot disk, it's better to first support this to
avoid the complication of all kinds of hardware iscsi or ibft.
In the future, we can address other request (if any) case by case.
Anyway, I think we need little more clarity on different fronts. I think
Chris Leech knows answers to those. So if you have questions, feel free
to send it to him.
Yeah, I'll ask him if I have further question.