| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] usage of the extra parameter in vm configs
On 30 Dec 2006 15:18:20 +0000, M.A. Williamson <maw48@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We'd actually been talking about replacing the current "root=", "extra="
etc. arguments with a single "cmdline=" which would contain the entire
kernel commandline - in the same way that a normal bootloader might.
I think that's a good idea, because that was the next question I
wanted to ask: what's the difference between the root variable (which
in all examples not only contains the root, but alo the additional
argument "ro") and extra, and why should I not just add more
arguments to the root variable and leave the extra arg empty?
You could. Or you could stick them all in the "extra" argument. The only
real reason that the variables are done this way is that it decouples the
user from the realities of Linux a little... Additional variables used to
be used to pass IP / NFS root information on the command line but I'm not
sure if this is still done...
The config file parser isn't *very* aware of how Linux command line syntax
works. At some stage it may be useful to make it more aware, for purposes
of providing more helpful configuration warnings - however, this still
doesn't really require the separate variables.
Out of interest, would anybody on the users list object to a general shift
towards supplying the whole command line in one variable, rather than
piecemeal in specially named fields? We wouldn't have to break backwards
compatibility to do this...
Cheers,
Mark
As I understand it now, theres no big semantic difference between
both, and they get actually "glued together" and handed over to the
guest kernel at domain creation time.
Does this answer your question satisfactorily?
Yes, thanks a lot!
Henning
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home