--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
[PATCH 0/2] Clean up operating-system-kernel-arguments. |
|
Date: |
Mon, 1 Jan 2018 14:22:00 +0100 |
Previously, the accessor for the field "kernel-arguments" in the structure
<operating-system> was called "operating-system-user-kernel-arguments".
The procedure "operating-system-kernel-arguments" made sure to add arguments
that made the system boot from a given device.
After some reflection I think I was mistaken in that.
It's nicer if the accessor is called "operating-system-kernel-argmuents"
and if the users just use "bootable-kernel-arguments" on their own in order to
amend them.
That's what this patch does.
Danny Milosavljevic (2):
system: Inline operating-system-kernel-arguments.
system: Rename operating-system-user-kernel-arguments to
operating-system-kernel-arguments.
gnu/system.scm | 19 ++++++++-----------
gnu/system/vm.scm | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#29932: [PATCH 0/2] Clean up operating-system-kernel-arguments. |
|
Date: |
Tue, 13 Jul 2021 07:56:14 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Ludo,
>>
>>> I’m a bit lost: in my tree I don’t have
>>> ‘operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments’. Is it still pending?
>>
>> It's added by PATCH v2 1/2 from the series. Didn't the second mail get
>> through?
>>
>>> Otherwise my only question is whether it’s a good idea to move away from
>>> the ‘user-’ convention. On one hand, it’s the convention we also have
>>> for services (‘-user-services’ vs. ‘-services’), so it would be a good
>>> thing to remain consistent. OTOH, what you propose is maybe clearer.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Yeah, I've split it into two patches because I actually got used to
>> operating-system-user-kernel-arguments by now (only a few days in).
>> We could only apply PATCH v2 1/2 and not apply PATCH v2 2/2 if we
>> wanted.
>>
>> In the end it comes down to whether we deem the existence
>> operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments an implementation detail or not
>> (whether the user would ever need to be aware of
>> operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments). We have to export
>> operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments because one thing in
>> gnu/system/vm.scm needs it - otherwise it would be very much an
>> implementation detail.
>>
>> Let's see what the others say.
>
> Two years later, here's what I have to say :-)
>
> I think it's nice, as a user, to be able to inspect the dynamically
> computed kernel arguments that Guix would use, as that can be used for
> debugging and gaining a better understanding (e.g., when passing an
> argument option that overrides one computed by Guix).
>
> If I followed this discussion correctly, currently we have:
>
> 1. operating-system-kernel-arguments which is a combination of
> dynamically computed arguments by Guix + the users arguments and
> 2. operating-system-user-arguments which are the users arguments
> themselves.
>
> It is proposed here to split this into:
>
> 1. operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments for the Guix-computed ones
> 2. operating-system-user-kernel-arguments remains unchanged
>
> Thus if the user wants to know what boot arguments their system will
> use, they'd have to append these two together.
>
> I think that two years have elapsed without touching this is perhaps an
> indication that it doesn't address any real problem :-). While it's
> good to attempt to clarify things, I'm afraid that changing this would
> confuse more that it'd help. As Ludovic pointed out, it'd also clash
> with the convention currently in use for services.
>
> What you do think?
There haven't been any further comments.
Closing.
Maxim
--- End Message ---