On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 07:45:01AM -0700, Nick Vinson wrote: > On 04/11/2018 01:31 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:00:04PM -0700, Nick Vinson wrote: > >> On 04/10/2018 01:52 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote: > >>> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 04:28:13PM -0700, Nicholas Vinson wrote: > >>>> Update grub-mkconfig.in and 10_linux.in to support grub-probe's new > >>>> partuuid target. Update grub.texi documentation. The following table > >>>> shows how GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID, GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_PARTUUID, and > >>>> initramfs detection interact: > >>>> > >>>> Initramfs GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_PARTUUID GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID Linux > >>>> Root > >>>> detected Set Set ID > >>>> Method > >>>> > >>>> False False False part > >>>> UUID > >>>> False False True part > >>>> UUID > >>>> False True False dev name > >>>> False True True dev name > >>>> True False False fs UUID > >>>> True False True part > >>>> UUID > >>>> True True False fs UUID > >>>> True True True dev name > >>> > >>> What will happen if GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_PARTUUID and/or > >>> GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID > >>> are not set? I think that you can avoid that by setting defaults. You do > >>> that > >>> for GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_PARTUUID in next patch but GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID > >>> does not have any default. > >>> > >> > >> If they're not set, then that's the same as them being set to 'False'. > >> I should have worded my table above a bit differently and used Yes/No > >> instead of True/False as that is really what it is trying to convey. > > > > IMO it will be more confusing. I think that I would use lowercase > > false/true as it is used in the script and below the table I would > > add a note that <VARIABLE_UNSET> == false or something like that. > > Ack. I will update the commit comment.
Thanks. May I ask you to put similar table into docs/grub.texi? Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
