dracut: Ignore module when building kdump initrd #1216
Conversation
|
I think this applies here too: coreos/ignition#2090 (comment) Though looks like we would need to change the return code here to be 255. Which... is technically a breaking change, but I think does makes sense. The initrd units here require integration on the OS side. |
8d42ef3 to
ee57bca
Compare
|
Thanks for the review. I've updated to unconditionally return 255 from the check function. Should we keep this behind an if guard? |
|
I think first we need to explicitly pull in the |
ee57bca to
8c881d9
Compare
|
The |
dracut/30afterburn/module-setup.sh
Outdated
| # | ||
| # TLDR: We don't need afterburn in kdump initrd, so this won't be included in it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, I personally wouldn't mention kdump here. Even without the kdump impetus, I think we should still do this. I would just say e.g.
# This module requires integration with the rest of the initramfs, so don't include it by default.There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. This makes sense. I'll update accordingly
8c881d9 to
b47159d
Compare
Related to: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1832 Signed-off-by: Pragyan Poudyal <pragyanpoudyal41999@gmail.com>
docs/release-notes.md
Outdated
| @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@ nav_order: 8 | |||
|
|
|||
| Major changes: | |||
|
|
|||
| - Don't include afterburn module in initramfs by default | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about:
| - Don't include afterburn module in initramfs by default | |
| - dracut: don't include module by default |
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I'll update it. Wasn't sure how we write the release notes
4c6ac95 to
772096c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Pragyan Poudyal <pragyanpoudyal41999@gmail.com>
772096c to
5bd1b0c
Compare
Related to: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1832