5:23 a.m.
(I'm getting a sense of deja vu, that I'm learning the same lesson
someone else recently learned here. Lets see if the 3rd time is the
charm...)
Attached is a revision to the persistence implementation that I posted a
couple weeks ago. This is mainly for Jeremy, Tim, and anyone else who
is interested in working on this, or something similar. I.e. at the
very least, it is worth a read to look at the issues I've dealt with,
and the several that are in comments as TODO.
It may well be that a simpler persistence implementation that involves
just extracting tarballs from usbsticks into the normal ram overlay, may
be useful instead of (or even in addition to) this kind of
implementation. (or perhaps some implementation of unionfs will make it
into fedora eventually?)
The main points of note, since the first post are-
- all sorts of bugs fixed
- I moved the overlay storage filesystem to be visible as /mnt/overlayfs
always. This solves some aspects of the current problem of not easily
being able to see how much writable space you really have available on
the rootfs. (the real answer is a combination of the device mapper
overlay file AND the filesystem it resides on).
- I've included modified /etc/rc.d/init.d/halt and functions, to handle
getting things cleanly shutdown (which is VERY important)
- ntfs is somewhat present, but not really working. I have tested with
vfat and ext3. Note that ext3 is a PITA when not cleanly unmounted- see
TODOs.
- rudimentary testing of the choice selection when multiple possible
overlay images are detected suggests it works.
- the patch format merely reflects my educational process with git, and
not that I suggest that code this immature is anywhere near ready for
merging. (i.e. inclusion of halt&functions and the origs I based them
off of. Refer to list archives for documentation on how to use
addidir/addsdir if needed)
As always, comments/criticisms/suggestions are more than welcome.
peace...
-dmc
10:10 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
(I'm getting a sense of deja vu, that I'm learning the same
lesson
someone else recently learned here. Lets see if the 3rd time is the
charm...)
It looks like you're getting hit by what Colin was where the list is
eating some attachments :-/ FWIW, the "best" way of sending patches
directly from git is git-format-patch followed by git-send-email; I need
to sit down and write up some simple docs for using git + livecd-creator
and best practices. Where's that 36 hour day? ;-)
I'll try to get access to the list admin page later and try to tweak
stuff to avoid the problem later as I suspect it's that one of the
default mailman settings blocks attachments that look like mail to avoid
some of the WINMAIL.DAT crap.
Attached is a revision to the persistence implementation that I
posted a
couple weeks ago. This is mainly for Jeremy, Tim, and anyone else who
is interested in working on this, or something similar. I.e. at the
very least, it is worth a read to look at the issues I've dealt with,
and the several that are in comments as TODO.
Since the patch isn't attached, I'll guess. This is still doing a file
which is loopback mounted and then added to the dm device?
It may well be that a simpler persistence implementation that
involves
just extracting tarballs from usbsticks into the normal ram overlay, may
be useful instead of (or even in addition to) this kind of
implementation. (or perhaps some implementation of unionfs will make it
into fedora eventually?)
There's work on doing unionfs via fuse which could be interesting for
that in the medium term. But I'm not sure how useful tarballs/unionfs
are when we think about the user experience. If it's going to persist,
we want changes to "persist" as soon as they're done, not after some set
of stuff is done to apply them.
The main points of note, since the first post are-
- all sorts of bugs fixed
- I moved the overlay storage filesystem to be visible as /mnt/overlayfs
always. This solves some aspects of the current problem of not easily
being able to see how much writable space you really have available on
the rootfs. (the real answer is a combination of the device mapper
overlay file AND the filesystem it resides on).
This sounds good.
- I've included modified /etc/rc.d/init.d/halt and functions, to
handle
getting things cleanly shutdown (which is VERY important)
And can see about getting these integrated with the initscripts bits.
Shouldn't be too bad to do
- ntfs is somewhat present, but not really working. I have tested
with
vfat and ext3. Note that ext3 is a PITA when not cleanly unmounted- see
TODOs.
Let's make things simpler for the moment and just ignore ntfs. If we
get things happy with ext3 and vfat, then we can start to think about
ntfs.
- rudimentary testing of the choice selection when multiple possible
overlay images are detected suggests it works.
Cool.
Jeremy
1:24 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 11:10 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> (I'm getting a sense of deja vu, that I'm learning the same lesson
> someone else recently learned here. Lets see if the 3rd time is the
> charm...)
It looks like you're getting hit by what Colin was where the list is
eating some attachments :-/
This should hopefully be fixed now. We'll find out the next time
someone tries :-)
Jeremy
2:10 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> (I'm getting a sense of deja vu, that I'm learning the same lesson
> someone else recently learned here. Lets see if the 3rd time is the
> charm...)
It looks like you're getting hit by what Colin was where the list is
eating some attachments :-/ FWIW, the "best" way of sending patches
directly from git is git-format-patch followed by git-send-email; I need
to sit down and write up some simple docs for using git + livecd-creator
and best practices. Where's that 36 hour day? ;-)
I'll try to get access to the list admin page later and try to tweak
stuff to avoid the problem later as I suspect it's that one of the
default mailman settings blocks attachments that look like mail to avoid
some of the WINMAIL.DAT crap.
Hmm... The 3rd time did appear to be the charm for me. Perhaps your
email client is eating a broader class of attachments than the list
itself. To see the patch, see the archive link of the post you replied to-
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-livecd-list/2007-August/msg00168.html
> Attached is a revision to the persistence implementation that I posted a
> couple weeks ago. This is mainly for Jeremy, Tim, and anyone else who
> is interested in working on this, or something similar. I.e. at the
> very least, it is worth a read to look at the issues I've dealt with,
> and the several that are in comments as TODO.
Since the patch isn't attached, I'll guess. This is still doing a file
which is loopback mounted and then added to the dm device?
correct.
> It may well be that a simpler persistence implementation that
involves
> just extracting tarballs from usbsticks into the normal ram overlay, may
> be useful instead of (or even in addition to) this kind of
> implementation. (or perhaps some implementation of unionfs will make it
> into fedora eventually?)
There's work on doing unionfs via fuse which could be interesting for
that in the medium term. But I'm not sure how useful tarballs/unionfs
are when we think about the user experience. If it's going to persist,
we want changes to "persist" as soon as they're done, not after some set
of stuff is done to apply them.
Well, the way ubuntu is trying to do it of course, is with unionfs
(since of course they use unionfs rather than dm-snapshot to get cow in
the first place).
And as such, unionfs can provide just as persistful an implementation as
the direction I've been going. In both cases you can think of the
persistence as another embedded layer in the total root filesystem.
> The main points of note, since the first post are-
> - all sorts of bugs fixed
>
> - I moved the overlay storage filesystem to be visible as /mnt/overlayfs
> always. This solves some aspects of the current problem of not easily
> being able to see how much writable space you really have available on
> the rootfs. (the real answer is a combination of the device mapper
> overlay file AND the filesystem it resides on).
This sounds good.
> - I've included modified /etc/rc.d/init.d/halt and functions, to handle
> getting things cleanly shutdown (which is VERY important)
And can see about getting these integrated with the initscripts bits.
Shouldn't be too bad to do
> - ntfs is somewhat present, but not really working. I have tested with
> vfat and ext3. Note that ext3 is a PITA when not cleanly unmounted- see
> TODOs.
Let's make things simpler for the moment and just ignore ntfs. If we
get things happy with ext3 and vfat, then we can start to think about
ntfs.
I was ignoring ntfs, though not enough to remove the stuff that could
support it.
-dmc
> - rudimentary testing of the choice selection when multiple possible
> overlay images are detected suggests it works.
Cool.
Jeremy
--
Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
2:36 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 14:10 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> (I'm getting a sense of deja vu, that I'm learning the same lesson
>> someone else recently learned here. Lets see if the 3rd time is the
>> charm...)
>
> It looks like you're getting hit by what Colin was where the list is
> eating some attachments :-/ FWIW, the "best" way of sending patches
> directly from git is git-format-patch followed by git-send-email; I need
> to sit down and write up some simple docs for using git + livecd-creator
> and best practices. Where's that 36 hour day? ;-)
>
> I'll try to get access to the list admin page later and try to tweak
> stuff to avoid the problem later as I suspect it's that one of the
> default mailman settings blocks attachments that look like mail to avoid
> some of the WINMAIL.DAT crap.
Hmm... The 3rd time did appear to be the charm for me. Perhaps your
email client is eating a broader class of attachments than the list
itself. To see the patch, see the archive link of the post you replied to-
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-livecd-list/2007-August/msg00168.html
Weird. In any case, I'm also now an admin for the list, and like I
said, I've _hopefully_ adjusted things so they should work anyway.
We'll see I guess. And review coming up from looking at the patch
next...
>> It may well be that a simpler persistence implementation
that involves
>> just extracting tarballs from usbsticks into the normal ram overlay, may
>> be useful instead of (or even in addition to) this kind of
>> implementation. (or perhaps some implementation of unionfs will make it
>> into fedora eventually?)
>
> There's work on doing unionfs via fuse which could be interesting for
> that in the medium term. But I'm not sure how useful tarballs/unionfs
> are when we think about the user experience. If it's going to persist,
> we want changes to "persist" as soon as they're done, not after some
set
> of stuff is done to apply them.
Well, the way ubuntu is trying to do it of course, is with unionfs
(since of course they use unionfs rather than dm-snapshot to get cow in
the first place).
And as such, unionfs can provide just as persistful an implementation as
the direction I've been going. In both cases you can think of the
persistence as another embedded layer in the total root filesystem.
It's been quite a while since I looked at unionfs, but I vaguely
remember that it was more subtree overlays. I guess you could perhaps
do a subtree of /. But even so, I don't know that supporting multiple
ways of achieving the same goal is really where we want to go. But it's
somewhat academic at the moment, so probably not much discussion needed.
> Let's make things simpler for the moment and just ignore
ntfs. If we
> get things happy with ext3 and vfat, then we can start to think about
> ntfs.
I was ignoring ntfs, though not enough to remove the stuff that could
support it.
I say let's just pull it. If it doesn't work right now, we might as
well save the effort of testing it and/or someone trying it, finding it
doesn't work, and filing a bug. Plus, it then makes the changes clearer
for looking at.
Jeremy
4:39 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 14:10 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Well, the way ubuntu is trying to do it of course, is with
unionfs
> (since of course they use unionfs rather than dm-snapshot to get cow in
> the first place).
>
> And as such, unionfs can provide just as persistful an implementation as
> the direction I've been going. In both cases you can think of the
> persistence as another embedded layer in the total root filesystem.
It's been quite a while since I looked at unionfs, but I vaguely
remember that it was more subtree overlays. I guess you could perhaps
do a subtree of /. But even so, I don't know that supporting multiple
ways of achieving the same goal is really where we want to go. But it's
somewhat academic at the moment, so probably not much discussion needed.
I'm not sure if there is some meaning of subtree that is different than
subdir. But the way most livecds work, is by having a big squashfs with
your root filesystem (all of it, not seperated into subdirs or
anything), and then having a tmpfs, and then using unionfs to make the
tmpfs act as a layer over the squashfs, and then doing pivotroot to that
single unionfs filesystem.
Kadischi used the method that was predominant before that unionfs
method, which was to have many subdirs (/usr, /opt) be read only, and
then have some subdirs (/tmp, /var, ...) be read only. Perhaps using
bindmounting or symlinks to handle some specific sub-subdirs.
Back to unionfs- The major disadvantage of unionfs is that it is not
'perfect' as a real rootfs (why AFAIK fedora/rh refused to merge it).
I.e. there are some known bugs, which knoppix and ubuntu just take as an
acceptable tradeoff.
The major advantage of unionfs, for the specific persistence topic at
hand, is that when you delete a file from the COW rootfs, in unionfs,
the memory is actually freed. Whereas for the dm-snapshot
implementation of persistence, that is not the case.
This may be acceptible. There may be workarounds for it (using shred to
delete files into 0's, and then resparsifying the persistence overlay?)
Anyway... yes, academic.
And unionfs can't get rebootless installation (bwa ha ha....)
-dmc
12:50 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
Douglas McClendon wrote:
Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 14:10 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> Well, the way ubuntu is trying to do it of course, is with unionfs
>> (since of course they use unionfs rather than dm-snapshot to get cow
>> in the first place).
>>
>> And as such, unionfs can provide just as persistful an
>> implementation as the direction I've been going. In both cases you
>> can think of the persistence as another embedded layer in the total
>> root filesystem.
>
>
> It's been quite a while since I looked at unionfs, but I vaguely
> remember that it was more subtree overlays. I guess you could perhaps
> do a subtree of /. But even so, I don't know that supporting multiple
> ways of achieving the same goal is really where we want to go. But it's
> somewhat academic at the moment, so probably not much discussion needed.
I'm not sure if there is some meaning of subtree that is different
than subdir. But the way most livecds work, is by having a big
squashfs with your root filesystem (all of it, not seperated into
subdirs or anything), and then having a tmpfs, and then using unionfs
to make the tmpfs act as a layer over the squashfs, and then doing
pivotroot to that single unionfs filesystem.
Kadischi used the method that was predominant before that unionfs
method, which was to have many subdirs (/usr, /opt) be read only, and
then have some subdirs (/tmp, /var, ...) be read only. Perhaps using
bindmounting or symlinks to handle some specific sub-subdirs.
Back to unionfs- The major disadvantage of unionfs is that it is not
'perfect' as a real rootfs (why AFAIK fedora/rh refused to merge it).
I.e. there are some known bugs, which knoppix and ubuntu just take as
an acceptable tradeoff.
the problem is in symlinks(unionfs). incase of devmaper this problem is
not there. But there is another issue. The snapshot size. The method I
follow is ofcourse Devmaper. But i tryed with fuse and funionfs but not
tested vigourously.
The major advantage of unionfs, for the specific persistence topic at
hand, is that when you delete a file from the COW rootfs, in unionfs,
the memory is actually freed. Whereas for the dm-snapshot
implementation of persistence, that is not the case.
This may be acceptible. There may be workarounds for it (using shred
to delete files into 0's, and then resparsifying the persistence
overlay?)
Anyway... yes, academic.
And unionfs can't get rebootless installation (bwa ha ha....)
-dmc
--
Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
--
Thanks
Ashok Shankar Das
RedHat, Pune
+91-9373695832
4:16 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
ashok shankar das wrote:
Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 14:10 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>
>
>>> Well, the way ubuntu is trying to do it of course, is with unionfs
>>> (since of course they use unionfs rather than dm-snapshot to get cow
>>> in the first place).
>>>
>>> And as such, unionfs can provide just as persistful an
>>> implementation as the direction I've been going. In both cases you
>>> can think of the persistence as another embedded layer in the total
>>> root filesystem.
>>
>>
>> It's been quite a while since I looked at unionfs, but I vaguely
>> remember that it was more subtree overlays. I guess you could perhaps
>> do a subtree of /. But even so, I don't know that supporting multiple
>> ways of achieving the same goal is really where we want to go. But it's
>> somewhat academic at the moment, so probably not much discussion needed.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if there is some meaning of subtree that is different
> than subdir. But the way most livecds work, is by having a big
> squashfs with your root filesystem (all of it, not seperated into
> subdirs or anything), and then having a tmpfs, and then using unionfs
> to make the tmpfs act as a layer over the squashfs, and then doing
> pivotroot to that single unionfs filesystem.
>
> Kadischi used the method that was predominant before that unionfs
> method, which was to have many subdirs (/usr, /opt) be read only, and
> then have some subdirs (/tmp, /var, ...) be read only. Perhaps using
> bindmounting or symlinks to handle some specific sub-subdirs.
>
> Back to unionfs- The major disadvantage of unionfs is that it is not
> 'perfect' as a real rootfs (why AFAIK fedora/rh refused to merge it).
> I.e. there are some known bugs, which knoppix and ubuntu just take as
> an acceptable tradeoff.
>
the problem is in symlinks(unionfs). incase of devmaper this problem is
not there. But there is another issue. The snapshot size. The method I
follow is ofcourse Devmaper. But i tryed with fuse and funionfs but not
tested vigourously.
Yes, I just ran across a page describing how ubuntu actually used to use
devicemapper snapshot, but switched to unionfs, because they said it was
faster and more flexible (and the overlay memory usage not decreasing
when cow created files get deleted).
As mentioned, it might be interesting work (for some day far from
today), to see if you could get rm to zero out files, and then have them
not take up space in the overlay device afterwords. I notice from man
chattr(and shred) there is already some work on the zero-out parts, and
perhaps dm-snapshot is already smart enough to detect that the newly
changed overlay blocks match the base blocks (0s in both cases), and
free the associated memory.
It would be nice however if there was a bulletproof unionfs
implementation though... that was as reliable for the rootfs as say,
LVM has proven to be.
-dmc
> The major advantage of unionfs, for the specific persistence topic at
> hand, is that when you delete a file from the COW rootfs, in unionfs,
> the memory is actually freed. Whereas for the dm-snapshot
> implementation of persistence, that is not the case.
>
> This may be acceptible. There may be workarounds for it (using shred
> to delete files into 0's, and then resparsifying the persistence
> overlay?)
>
> Anyway... yes, academic.
>
> And unionfs can't get rebootless installation (bwa ha ha....)
>
> -dmc
>
>
> --
> Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
> Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
1:02 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
Douglas McClendon wrote:
ashok shankar das wrote:
> Douglas McClendon wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 14:10 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Well, the way ubuntu is trying to do it of course, is with unionfs
>>>> (since of course they use unionfs rather than dm-snapshot to get
>>>> cow in the first place).
>>>>
>>>> And as such, unionfs can provide just as persistful an
>>>> implementation as the direction I've been going. In both cases
>>>> you can think of the persistence as another embedded layer in the
>>>> total root filesystem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been quite a while since I looked at unionfs, but I vaguely
>>> remember that it was more subtree overlays. I guess you could perhaps
>>> do a subtree of /. But even so, I don't know that supporting multiple
>>> ways of achieving the same goal is really where we want to go. But
>>> it's
>>> somewhat academic at the moment, so probably not much discussion
>>> needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if there is some meaning of subtree that is different
>> than subdir. But the way most livecds work, is by having a big
>> squashfs with your root filesystem (all of it, not seperated into
>> subdirs or anything), and then having a tmpfs, and then using
>> unionfs to make the tmpfs act as a layer over the squashfs, and then
>> doing pivotroot to that single unionfs filesystem.
>>
>> Kadischi used the method that was predominant before that unionfs
>> method, which was to have many subdirs (/usr, /opt) be read only,
>> and then have some subdirs (/tmp, /var, ...) be read only. Perhaps
>> using bindmounting or symlinks to handle some specific sub-subdirs.
>>
>> Back to unionfs- The major disadvantage of unionfs is that it is
>> not 'perfect' as a real rootfs (why AFAIK fedora/rh refused to merge
>> it). I.e. there are some known bugs, which knoppix and ubuntu just
>> take as an acceptable tradeoff.
>>
> the problem is in symlinks(unionfs). incase of devmaper this problem
> is not there. But there is another issue. The snapshot size. The
> method I follow is ofcourse Devmaper. But i tryed with fuse and
> funionfs but not tested vigourously.
Yes, I just ran across a page describing how ubuntu actually used to
use devicemapper snapshot, but switched to unionfs, because they said
it was faster and more flexible (and the overlay memory usage not
decreasing when cow created files get deleted).
As mentioned, it might be interesting work (for some day far from
today), to see if you could get rm to zero out files, and then have
them not take up space in the overlay device afterwords. I notice
from man chattr(and shred) there is already some work on the zero-out
parts, and perhaps dm-snapshot is already smart enough to detect that
the newly changed overlay blocks match the base blocks (0s in both
cases), and free the associated memory.
It would be nice however if there was a bulletproof unionfs
implementation though... that was as reliable for the rootfs as say,
LVM has proven to be.
I agree with your views. And The LVM stuffs are really nice, but why not
experiment with new things?
That is why if sombody can make *unionfs/funionfs* rock solid then the
livecd/persistent issue would be solved.
Even i could dream of a diskless persistent handheld device too ;)
-dmc
>
>> The major advantage of unionfs, for the specific persistence topic
>> at hand, is that when you delete a file from the COW rootfs, in
>> unionfs, the memory is actually freed. Whereas for the dm-snapshot
>> implementation of persistence, that is not the case.
>>
>> This may be acceptible. There may be workarounds for it (using
>> shred to delete files into 0's, and then resparsifying the
>> persistence overlay?)
>>
>> Anyway... yes, academic.
>>
>> And unionfs can't get rebootless installation (bwa ha ha....)
>>
>> -dmc
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
>> Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
>
>
>
>
--
Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
Fedora-livecd-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
--
Thanks
Ashok Shankar Das
RedHat, Pune
+91-9373695832
5:26 p.m.
New subject: my livecd-tools git notes
Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> (I'm getting a sense of deja vu, that I'm learning the same lesson
> someone else recently learned here. Lets see if the 3rd time is the
> charm...)
It looks like you're getting hit by what Colin was where the list is
eating some attachments :-/ FWIW, the "best" way of sending patches
directly from git is git-format-patch followed by git-send-email; I need
to sit down and write up some simple docs for using git + livecd-creator
and best practices. Where's that 36 hour day? ;-)
While I may use git-send-email someday, for the moment I prefer
attaching the patch manually to a thunderbird composed email. What I
did to get the 3rd one through, was to manually delete the 4 email
header style lines from the git-format-patch patch (which I then
verified is still a validly apply-able patch syntax).
Anyway, FWIW, here are the notes I made to myself while learning the
second minimal level of git functionality. Obviously no need for a
livecd-tools rehash of the fine git tutorials and docs already
available. Or at least not for anything much more complicated than what
is attached.
-dmc
# initial checkout
git clone git://git.fedoraproject.org/git/hosted/livecd
cd livecd
# create new overlay branch
git branch overlay
# list branches (now master and overlay)
git branch
# switch to overlay branch
git checkout overlay
# edit Makefile, first thing
# run git gui, notice nothing reflecting the Makefile edit, as it is
# uncommitted
gitk
# set identity (commit complains if not set)
git config user.email "dmc(a)filteredperception.org"
git config user.name "Douglas McClendon"
# commit makefile (and all changes)
git commit -a
# add findoverlay script
cd creator
cp /somewhere/findoverlay ./findoverlay
git add findoverlay
# commit findoverlay
git commit -a
# notice gitk coolness
gitk
# generate patchset (1 per commit in mailer format)
git-format-patch master
# notice that sending in that format as an attachment causes problems,
# due to embedded mailer fields, so manually edit and remove those top
# 4 lines, then verified that patch still understands the format, and
# the result does make it to fedora-livecd-list
2:41 p.m.
New subject: my livecd-tools git notes
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:26 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Anyway, FWIW, here are the notes I made to myself while learning the
second minimal level of git functionality. Obviously no need for a
livecd-tools rehash of the fine git tutorials and docs already
available. Or at least not for anything much more complicated than
what is attached.
One little addition for anyone else who might be in the same boat.
# set identity (commit complains if not set)
git config user.email "dmc(a)filteredperception.org"
git config user.name "Douglas McClendon"
You can use "git config --global" to set this globally and not have to
do so on a per-project basis.
Jeremy
3:18 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Attached is a revision to the persistence implementation that I
posted a
couple weeks ago. This is mainly for Jeremy, Tim, and anyone else who
is interested in working on this, or something similar. I.e. at the
very least, it is worth a read to look at the issues I've dealt with,
and the several that are in comments as TODO.
Couple of little things just to make reviewing easier, but not huge
problems
* Might be good to keep the initscripts changes as patches rather than
an orig and a modified version. Will make things work even if other
things in initscripts change and also makes it easier to know what's
going on.
* It's good to get into the habit of doing git commits for each separate
change. Then you can get a patch per change. And that would avoid
having the addidir/addsdir stuff being in the same changes
Now to get to the meat of things
index 0000000..8962720
--- /dev/null
+++ b/creator/etc_rc.d_init.d_functions
I suspect that Bill might have some reservations about the hard-coded
overlayfs piece. At the same time, it's all I can think of and it's not
that out of line from other things in halt/rc.sysinit.
For the overlay info bit, we could potentially just stuff it
in /sbin/halt.local for now I think.
diff --git a/creator/findoverlay b/creator/findoverlay
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..e0674cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/creator/findoverlay
This looks pretty good to me...
+# load filesystem modules that may be required for overlay
+# TODO: only load these conditionally if vol_id detects a fs that needs
them
Do they not get loaded automatically on the filesystem mount? That at
least used to work.
+# IMPORTANT TODO: while mount scanning find a way to determine if the
+# filesystem was not cleanly unmounted. If so, IGNORE IT,
+# as it may be part of a hibernated OS !!!!!!!
Maybe instead of using cleanly unmounted vs not as the key, we should
look at swaps to see if they have the SWSUSP signature? That's a pretty
straight-forward thing to check, but I can't quite convince myself if
it's as safe or not.
+# CAVEAT: If the overlay file has a kin file with the suffix .inuse, this
+# is evidence that that the overlay device was not unmounted cleanly.
+# In _this_ case, look at the filesystem(???) and determine whether
+# or not the most recent mount of the filesystem is more recent than
+# the inuse file. *If and only if* NOT, then it is safe to assume
+# that the filesystem is not part of a hibernated OS, and rather was
+# most recently used as a persistence device that failed to be
+# shutdown cleanly, thus it is safe to fsck the overlayfs, and then
+# fsck the overlay-rootfs
If we checked for the swsusp case instead, would we be able to skip this?
+# IMPORTANT TODO: since ext3 is such a pain (possible?) to mount readonly,
+# and since similar issues may exist in other fs (ntfs???),
+# I think it would be good to have a function called
+# really_mount_readonly() which does a blockdev --setro, then
+# does a devicemapper snapshot to ram, then does a mount of
+# the snapshotted device, then checks for existence of
+# overlay and .inuse files.
If the blockdev is read-only, do we really need to snapshot it too?
+# RELATED: Given the above function, if a persistence file is detected,
+# but the above above inuse/recent-mount-stamp test fails, give
+# the user a 30-60 second timeout option to force an fsck and mount
+# of the uncleanly mounted overlayfs, defaulting to not using it.
Probably fair. fsck in the initramfs might have fun around controlling
terminals and sometimes wanting to drop to a shell, so needs some
testing to make sure it's sane
+# TODO: All this multiple candidate code hasn't been tested recently (can't
+# remember if it ever really did work). Though I have tested the
+# typical auto case where one overlay is found and used.
Probably the most important one :)
+# TODO: verify that filesystems other than ext3 work. I know this will
+# probably mean some interesting special case code.
+
+# TODO: handle nfs/network(fuse-httpfs?) persistence devices. This will
+# require the ability to set up the network here, which is probably
+# not trivial.
This is one of the reasons I want to get rid of mayflower and build up
mkinitrd; mkinitrd already has all kinds of network setup code for
nfs/iscsi root and then we could take advantage of that. And fwiw, I
spent a little bit of time getting a branch of mkinitrd started being
able to do so, but then ran into a need for modprobe to do something
more. Will get back there eventually. On the plus side, trying to make
sure that we can do that switch without it mattering much for things
like the overlay finding code (just have to do the little plug-in
similar to the mayflower change)
+# TODO: handle fsck'ing the rootfs if need be correctly? Or does the right
+# thing just happen. I know that trying to use a persistence file
+# from something that got unmounted uncleanly, seems to cause problems
+# VERY quickly. This may be a fatal flaw... (or at least require
+# some work)
fsck of the combined fs should happen fine once we get into the normal
userspace. And the ro rootfs shouldn't need fsck'ing. So I *think* we
should be fine. Only needing to then worry about the case of a
persistence file from an uncleanly mounted filesystem. Which maybe can
be punted by saying you use ext3 (with journal, therefore no need for
fsck usually) or vfat (unclean unmount is less disasterous)
+ losetup /dev/loop119 /mnt/overlayfs/overlay
+ echo "overlayfs_dev=tmpfs" > /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "overlayfs_fstype=tmpfs" >> /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "overlayfs_path=/overlay" >> /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "/mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse" > /overlay.info
Am I missing where this is used or is it just informational?
diff --git a/creator/mayflower b/creator/mayflower
index c1c5258..29cc8ec 100755
--- a/creator/mayflower
+++ b/creator/mayflower
@@ -268,6 +290,21 @@ for o in \`cat /proc/cmdline\` ; do
live_locale=*)
live_locale=\${o#live_locale=}
;;
+ #
+ # dmc overlay: aesthetics, undecided about name persistence vs
overlay
I actually kind of like overlay. But yeah, aesthetics :)
+ # dmc overlay: if non-ram overlay searching is desired, do it,
+ # otherwise, create overlay in ram as usual
+ if [ "x\${overlay}" != "x" ]; then
+ /sbin/findoverlay "\$overlay"
+ else
+ mkdir -p /mnt/overlayfs
+ mount -n -t tmpfs -o mode=0755 none /mnt/overlayfs
+ dd if=/dev/null of=/mnt/overlayfs/overlay bs=1024 count=1 seek=
$((512*1024)) 2> /dev/null
+ losetup /dev/loop119 /mnt/overlayfs/overlay
+ echo "overlayfs_dev=tmpfs" > /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "overlayfs_fstype=tmpfs" >> /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "/mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse" > /overlay.info
+ fi
This looks good; though as we had previously discussed, once this is
working, we probably want auto to be the default and to be able to have
overlay=off or overlay=ram or something to go back to the current mode.
So yeah, overall, this is looking pretty spiffily good to me and I'm
leaning towards starting to get it merged in so that we can start
getting real use of it
Jeremy
4:29 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Attached is a revision to the persistence implementation that I posted a
> couple weeks ago. This is mainly for Jeremy, Tim, and anyone else who
> is interested in working on this, or something similar. I.e. at the
> very least, it is worth a read to look at the issues I've dealt with,
> and the several that are in comments as TODO.
Couple of little things just to make reviewing easier, but not huge
problems
* Might be good to keep the initscripts changes as patches rather than
an orig and a modified version. Will make things work even if other
things in initscripts change and also makes it easier to know what's
going on.
Agreed, this was still just a second pass....
* It's good to get into the habit of doing git commits for each
separate
change. Then you can get a patch per change. And that would avoid
having the addidir/addsdir stuff being in the same changes
Actually, I was sort of making a combined point, that I was using
addsdir as my method of including the modified initscripts.
Long term, some sort elegant flexible permanent change to the
initscripts are needed. Medium term, I was planning on having just the
patches, and actually copying the patches into the initrd and having the
livecd boot sequence patch the init scripts.
Hopefully this illustrates why as a developer, having addsdir (or better
named, --add-dir-to-system) functionality is very nice. If you can show
me a better workflow...
Now to get to the meat of things
index 0000000..8962720
--- /dev/null
+++ b/creator/etc_rc.d_init.d_functions
I suspect that Bill might have some reservations about the hard-coded
overlayfs piece. At the same time, it's all I can think of and it's not
that out of line from other things in halt/rc.sysinit.
I agree with the reservations. I'm open to suggestions. For the
moment, there is a lot of much uglier stuff to deal with first.
For the overlay info bit, we could potentially just stuff it
in /sbin/halt.local for now I think.
I saw halt.local. I don't think you noticed how brutally ugly what I
was doing was.
The goal of that code after halt.local is to get the overlayfs cleanly
unmounted.
The way I currently accomplished that, was to YANK the snapshot overlay
out of the root device. The only thing that makes this even remotely
palatable, is the fact that the root device has been remounted read
only. Which is the one thing that has happened between this code and
the halt.local. (thus making halt.local not a workable place for this code)
Thinking about it, the way to make it less horrendously ugly, would be
to copy the binaries used from the rootfs (dmsetup, losetup, rm, mount)
to a tmpfs first, since after the yanking, there is really no guarantee
that any data read from the rootfs can be relied on.
Or at least those are my thoughts on the issue right now.
diff --git a/creator/findoverlay b/creator/findoverlay
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..e0674cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/creator/findoverlay
This looks pretty good to me...
+# load filesystem modules that may be required for overlay
+# TODO: only load these conditionally if vol_id detects a fs that needs
them
Do they not get loaded automatically on the filesystem mount? That at
least used to work.
Probably. These were liberal notes. Though maybe the fuse ntfs doesn't
work as nicely. Not a big deal.
+# IMPORTANT TODO: while mount scanning find a way to determine if the
+# filesystem was not cleanly unmounted. If so, IGNORE IT,
+# as it may be part of a hibernated OS !!!!!!!
Maybe instead of using cleanly unmounted vs not as the key, we should
look at swaps to see if they have the SWSUSP signature? That's a pretty
straight-forward thing to check, but I can't quite convince myself if
it's as safe or not.
My worry about this- is things like *3* current hibernate
implementations for linux. That means that you have many possible
signatures to check, and there is no way to predict signature changes in
future versions of hibernation.
Another possible clincher is things like suspend2's (sorry, 'tux-on-ice'
now) support for hibernation to files in the rootfs. I.e. I used to,
and intend in the future, set up my system with no swap partition at
all, doing swapfiles, and suspend2-suspend-to-file. (though I admit I'm
currently getting some milage out of F7's much improved suspend out of
the box)
+# CAVEAT: If the overlay file has a kin file with the suffix .inuse, this
+# is evidence that that the overlay device was not unmounted cleanly.
+# In _this_ case, look at the filesystem(???) and determine whether
+# or not the most recent mount of the filesystem is more recent than
+# the inuse file. *If and only if* NOT, then it is safe to assume
+# that the filesystem is not part of a hibernated OS, and rather was
+# most recently used as a persistence device that failed to be
+# shutdown cleanly, thus it is safe to fsck the overlayfs, and then
+# fsck the overlay-rootfs
If we checked for the swsusp case instead, would we be able to skip this?
see above...
Also, I just noticed that dumpe2fs does get me cleanly vs uncleanly
mounted detection for ext2/3. And vfat I almost don't care about. I
would like the same for ntfs, but as I'll mention again, I agree, ntfs
support can be saved for the long term.
+# IMPORTANT TODO: since ext3 is such a pain (possible?) to mount readonly,
+# and since similar issues may exist in other fs (ntfs???),
+# I think it would be good to have a function called
+# really_mount_readonly() which does a blockdev --setro, then
+# does a devicemapper snapshot to ram, then does a mount of
+# the snapshotted device, then checks for existence of
+# overlay and .inuse files.
If the blockdev is read-only, do we really need to snapshot it too?
The point is that when blockdev is read-only, you just can't mount it.
(I think. I'm pretty sure I even tried mounting ro as ext2 and that
failed. But that seems so wrong, I wouldn't bet on it without trying
first.).
I'll do more experimentation and things will become clearer.
+# RELATED: Given the above function, if a persistence file is detected,
+# but the above above inuse/recent-mount-stamp test fails, give
+# the user a 30-60 second timeout option to force an fsck and mount
+# of the uncleanly mounted overlayfs, defaulting to not using it.
Probably fair. fsck in the initramfs might have fun around controlling
terminals and sometimes wanting to drop to a shell, so needs some
testing to make sure it's sane
+# TODO: All this multiple candidate code hasn't been tested recently (can't
+# remember if it ever really did work). Though I have tested the
+# typical auto case where one overlay is found and used.
Probably the most important one :)
Actually this was a relic. As I mentioned in the mail, I actually had
tested this. And in fact, I learned, or relearned, a bit more about
bash arrays, and the code doing this will look much cleaner soon.
+# TODO: verify that filesystems other than ext3 work. I know this will
+# probably mean some interesting special case code.
+
+# TODO: handle nfs/network(fuse-httpfs?) persistence devices. This will
+# require the ability to set up the network here, which is probably
+# not trivial.
This is one of the reasons I want to get rid of mayflower and build up
mkinitrd; mkinitrd already has all kinds of network setup code for
nfs/iscsi root and then we could take advantage of that. And fwiw, I
spent a little bit of time getting a branch of mkinitrd started being
able to do so, but then ran into a need for modprobe to do something
more. Will get back there eventually. On the plus side, trying to make
sure that we can do that switch without it mattering much for things
like the overlay finding code (just have to do the little plug-in
similar to the mayflower change)
Yeah, I had noticed the nfs root stuff, which is part of what made me
think of network sorts of possibilities here.
+# TODO: handle fsck'ing the rootfs if need be correctly? Or does the right
+# thing just happen. I know that trying to use a persistence file
+# from something that got unmounted uncleanly, seems to cause problems
+# VERY quickly. This may be a fatal flaw... (or at least require
+# some work)
fsck of the combined fs should happen fine once we get into the normal
userspace. And the ro rootfs shouldn't need fsck'ing. So I *think* we
should be fine. Only needing to then worry about the case of a
persistence file from an uncleanly mounted filesystem. Which maybe can
be punted by saying you use ext3 (with journal, therefore no need for
fsck usually) or vfat (unclean unmount is less disasterous)
As mentioned by the 'fatal flaw', my apprehension is based on seeing how
_very quickly_ things seem to fall over dead when trying to use a
persistence file that did not get cleanly shut down. (while trying to
access the fsck binary even...?)
More experimentation again, will flush this issue out. Obviously if the
whole system/mechanism cannot robustly deal with repeated yank-the-plug
situations, then it isn't going to work for real users.
I think I can put together a much more testable-quality patch fairly soon.
I'm not entirely sure about merge worthy within a week... But we'll
see. And I guess I can see something safe enough to merge within a
week, given the safe default code paths (i.e. not default to auto for f8t2)
+ losetup /dev/loop119 /mnt/overlayfs/overlay
+ echo "overlayfs_dev=tmpfs" > /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "overlayfs_fstype=tmpfs" >> /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "overlayfs_path=/overlay" >> /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "/mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse" > /overlay.info
Am I missing where this is used or is it just informational?
This isn't really necessary in the traditional tmpfs overlay case that
you referenced here. I did it mainly for consistency. Also, as alluded
to before, a userspace tool that could online grow the overlay file,
would use this. As this /overlay.info file becomes the .inuse file
which is visible later. (again, maybe unnecessary. We'll see if I
actually find a real use for it)
diff --git a/creator/mayflower b/creator/mayflower
index c1c5258..29cc8ec 100755
--- a/creator/mayflower
+++ b/creator/mayflower
@@ -268,6 +290,21 @@ for o in \`cat /proc/cmdline\` ; do
live_locale=*)
live_locale=\${o#live_locale=}
;;
+ #
+ # dmc overlay: aesthetics, undecided about name persistence vs
overlay
I actually kind of like overlay. But yeah, aesthetics :)
I agree. Persistence is perhaps a better description of the feature for
end users. But overlay has the dual benefits of being easier to type,
and exposes a fairly appropriate amount of information about how it is
implemented.
+ # dmc overlay: if non-ram overlay searching is desired, do it,
+ # otherwise, create overlay in ram as usual
+ if [ "x\${overlay}" != "x" ]; then
+ /sbin/findoverlay "\$overlay"
+ else
+ mkdir -p /mnt/overlayfs
+ mount -n -t tmpfs -o mode=0755 none /mnt/overlayfs
+ dd if=/dev/null of=/mnt/overlayfs/overlay bs=1024 count=1 seek=
$((512*1024)) 2> /dev/null
+ losetup /dev/loop119 /mnt/overlayfs/overlay
+ echo "overlayfs_dev=tmpfs" > /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "overlayfs_fstype=tmpfs" >> /mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse
+ echo "/mnt/overlayfs/overlay.inuse" > /overlay.info
+ fi
This looks good; though as we had previously discussed, once this is
working, we probably want auto to be the default and to be able to have
overlay=off or overlay=ram or something to go back to the current mode.
Agreed. But this may be a safe avenue if you really want to put code
this immature in f8t2.
So yeah, overall, this is looking pretty spiffily good to me and I'm
leaning towards starting to get it merged in so that we can start
getting real use of it
We'll see where I'm at in another 24-48 hours, cleaning up the most
obviously ugly things and perhaps making a more testable patch.
-dmc
9:04 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:29 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> For the overlay info bit, we could potentially just stuff it
> in /sbin/halt.local for now I think.
I saw halt.local. I don't think you noticed how brutally ugly what I
was doing was.
The goal of that code after halt.local is to get the overlayfs cleanly
unmounted.
The way I currently accomplished that, was to YANK the snapshot overlay
out of the root device. The only thing that makes this even remotely
palatable, is the fact that the root device has been remounted read
only. Which is the one thing that has happened between this code and
the halt.local. (thus making halt.local not a workable place for this code)
Ah yeah, oh well. Was at least a thought. Although, continuing with
just stupid thinking out loud, why yank it? We've mounted the root
device ro, so we should also be able to make the overlay device read
only at that point. Which would then lead to it being clean on the next
boot and should be reliable. Unless I'm missing something, which I
probably am since it's still early
Thinking about it, the way to make it less horrendously ugly, would
be
to copy the binaries used from the rootfs (dmsetup, losetup, rm, mount)
to a tmpfs first, since after the yanking, there is really no guarantee
that any data read from the rootfs can be relied on.
Alternately (and I've had this discussion before with someone, although
I forget whom), we really want to be able to get back to running from
the initramfs on shutdown. eg, that's the only way we'll ever be able
to eject the CD for reboot. And at that point, we do have the binaries
we care about and can rely on them and maybe could have this be cleaner.
> +# IMPORTANT TODO: while mount scanning find a way to determine
if the
> +# filesystem was not cleanly unmounted. If so, IGNORE IT,
> +# as it may be part of a hibernated OS !!!!!!!
>
> Maybe instead of using cleanly unmounted vs not as the key, we should
> look at swaps to see if they have the SWSUSP signature? That's a pretty
> straight-forward thing to check, but I can't quite convince myself if
> it's as safe or not.
My worry about this- is things like *3* current hibernate
implementations for linux. That means that you have many possible
signatures to check, and there is no way to predict signature changes in
future versions of hibernation.
There's no way to predict the future, period. Generally, as the world
around the live image being created changes, things like initrds, etc
have to evolve too. But, I'm not at all tied one way or another. I
wonder if we could actually just take advantage of fsck to tell us if
it's clean or dirty -- I guess only if we did a "don't change anything
run" and not anything more programatic.
[snip]
> So yeah, overall, this is looking pretty spiffily good to me and
I'm
> leaning towards starting to get it merged in so that we can start
> getting real use of it
We'll see where I'm at in another 24-48 hours, cleaning up the most
obviously ugly things and perhaps making a more testable patch.
If we want to get to where it's available by default in F8, it'll
definitely be good to have something for test2, even if some of the
"pull the plug" corner cases aren't happy. The only reason I feel okay
with making the auto case the default is that while it's automatic to
use if setup, you still have to setup the overlay file. So unless
you've already done the setup work to opt-in, you're not going to get
hit that hard.
Jeremy
1:26 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only
Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:29 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 05:23 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> For the overlay info bit, we could potentially just stuff it
>> in /sbin/halt.local for now I think.
> I saw halt.local. I don't think you noticed how brutally ugly what I
> was doing was.
>
> The goal of that code after halt.local is to get the overlayfs cleanly
> unmounted.
>
> The way I currently accomplished that, was to YANK the snapshot overlay
> out of the root device. The only thing that makes this even remotely
> palatable, is the fact that the root device has been remounted read
> only. Which is the one thing that has happened between this code and
> the halt.local. (thus making halt.local not a workable place for this code)
Ah yeah, oh well. Was at least a thought. Although, continuing with
just stupid thinking out loud, why yank it? We've mounted the root
device ro, so we should also be able to make the overlay device read
only at that point. Which would then lead to it being clean on the next
boot and should be reliable. Unless I'm missing something, which I
probably am since it's still early
No, I think you you're right. The same thought hit me last night. I
think the key (if it works) is using losetup -r to change the overlay
loopback device to readonly before trying the unmount. I think not
realizing that that is possible is what put me on the wrong track.
> Thinking about it, the way to make it less horrendously ugly, would be
> to copy the binaries used from the rootfs (dmsetup, losetup, rm, mount)
> to a tmpfs first, since after the yanking, there is really no guarantee
> that any data read from the rootfs can be relied on.
Alternately (and I've had this discussion before with someone, although
I forget whom), we really want to be able to get back to running from
the initramfs on shutdown. eg, that's the only way we'll ever be able
to eject the CD for reboot. And at that point, we do have the binaries
we care about and can rely on them and maybe could have this be cleaner.
I also came to this conclusion. It is also quite logical in the sense
of tearing things down in the reverse order of how they are built up.
Also if the ideas about putting gdm and other stuff into initramfs, that
also makes more sense. Part of it, would be doing something similar to
what I did with /mnt/overlayfs to make the originial initramfs mount
point remain visible after the pivotroot. I'll give it a shot.
>> +# IMPORTANT TODO: while mount scanning find a way to determine if the
>> +# filesystem was not cleanly unmounted. If so, IGNORE IT,
>> +# as it may be part of a hibernated OS !!!!!!!
>>
>> Maybe instead of using cleanly unmounted vs not as the key, we should
>> look at swaps to see if they have the SWSUSP signature? That's a pretty
>> straight-forward thing to check, but I can't quite convince myself if
>> it's as safe or not.
> My worry about this- is things like *3* current hibernate
> implementations for linux. That means that you have many possible
> signatures to check, and there is no way to predict signature changes in
> future versions of hibernation.
There's no way to predict the future, period. Generally, as the world
around the live image being created changes, things like initrds, etc
have to evolve too. But, I'm not at all tied one way or another. I
wonder if we could actually just take advantage of fsck to tell us if
it's clean or dirty -- I guess only if we did a "don't change anything
run" and not anything more programatic.
That sounds promising.
[snip]
>> So yeah, overall, this is looking pretty spiffily good to me and I'm
>> leaning towards starting to get it merged in so that we can start
>> getting real use of it
> We'll see where I'm at in another 24-48 hours, cleaning up the most
> obviously ugly things and perhaps making a more testable patch.
If we want to get to where it's available by default in F8, it'll
definitely be good to have something for test2, even if some of the
"pull the plug" corner cases aren't happy. The only reason I feel okay
with making the auto case the default is that while it's automatic to
use if setup, you still have to setup the overlay file. So unless
you've already done the setup work to opt-in, you're not going to get
hit that hard.
The reason why I would disagree (fairly strongly), is that even if you
haven't set up the persistent device, all this code is going to be
running at boot time, that is probing and looking at all the partitions
on the system, in a much drastically more invasive fashion than has
historically been the case. I don't think that there is anything that
could happen in a week or two that would make me feel comfortable enough
about the solidness of the code that I would endorse that.
Now, only doing that if the f8t2 user reads the disclaimer in the docs
before finding out they need to type "overlay=auto" at the boot prompt,
that I have no problem with.
-dmc
3:17 a.m.
New subject: Managing patches [was Re: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only]
Hey,
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:18 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
* It's good to get into the habit of doing git commits for each
separate
change. Then you can get a patch per change. And that would avoid
having the addidir/addsdir stuff being in the same changes
FWIW, I don't think this approach useful, unless you're the type of
person that gets every change perfect first time :-)
Basically, git records a history of how you developed a set of changes,
rather than allowing you to work individual changes separately.
I've tried stgit (stacked git), but found it fairly cumbersome and
confusing. I may try it again sometime, but right now I still use quilt
for managing a set of patches ...
(And yes, quilt isn't perfect either - as demonstrated by me sending an
older version of a patch yesterday)
Cheers,
Mark.
6:19 a.m.
New subject: Managing patches [was Re: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only]
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:17:59AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hey,
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:18 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> * It's good to get into the habit of doing git commits for each
> separate
> change. Then you can get a patch per change. And that would avoid
> having the addidir/addsdir stuff being in the same changes
FWIW, I don't think this approach useful, unless you're the type of
person that gets every change perfect first time :-)
Basically, git records a history of how you developed a set of changes,
rather than allowing you to work individual changes separately.
Branches are "free" in git. So, you can make a branch for what you
want to work on, do it there with lots of commits, then when you're
really happy with the change and want to apply it as one or more
commits to your master branch, you can create a new branch from
master; git diff master..yourdevbranch; apply the patches and commit as
you like in your new branch; git push master. So you get the best of both worlds.
-Matt
--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
6:53 a.m.
New subject: Managing patches [was Re: [PATCH] overlay/persistence second pass - for developer reference only]
On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 06:19 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:17:59AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:18 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > * It's good to get into the habit of doing git commits for each
> > separate
> > change. Then you can get a patch per change. And that would avoid
> > having the addidir/addsdir stuff being in the same changes
>
> FWIW, I don't think this approach useful, unless you're the type of
> person that gets every change perfect first time :-)
>
> Basically, git records a history of how you developed a set of changes,
> rather than allowing you to work individual changes separately.
Branches are "free" in git. So, you can make a branch for what you
want to work on, do it there with lots of commits, then when you're
really happy with the change and want to apply it as one or more
commits to your master branch, you can create a new branch from
master; git diff master..yourdevbranch; apply the patches and commit as
you like in your new branch; git push master. So you get the best of both worlds.
Granted, but if you're working on a few interrelated patches, this gets
seriously cumbersome. Yes, you could use branches of branches but ...
Point is that git doesn't do a good job of this right now - although
stgit is promising - so I think git would ultimately just discourage
people from the concept of splitting their patches into nice
easy-to-review chunks.
It may not be terribly sophisticated, but at least quilt has the right
model and is simple to use and understand. A stack of patches, each
independently hackable.
Cheers,
Mark.
5131
days inactive
5146
days old
livecd@lists.fedoraproject.org
17 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
ashok shankar das -
Douglas McClendon -
Jeremy Katz -
Mark McLoughlin -
Matt Domsch