From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Core Update 169: Regenerate initrds and save space on ARM Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 15:43:23 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <80967281-9399-0941-03c7-6283583dc2bd@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2213581440852671065==" List-Id: --===============2213581440852671065== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, > On 7 Jul 2022, at 15:30, Peter M=C3=BCller wro= te: >=20 > Hello Michael, >=20 > thanks for your reply. >=20 >> Hello, >> Indeed we don=E2=80=99t need to ship them, we can generate them instead. >> But that has of course some downsides, too: >> * It is slow >> * It is not entirely error-proof (out of disk space, out of memory, system= being rebooted too early) >=20 > So I guess the first newly introduced line ("dracut --regenerate-all --forc= e") of > my patch is obsolete then, as the initrds are already there - we just need = the directives > for ARM. Those should be shipped, too. Adding more size to the updater when shipping t= he same stuff multiple times. > To my understanding, if dracut fails due to space/memory issues, the upgrad= e would have > failed either way. My point was that extracting the update would consume less memory. Disk space= constraints still apply unless there is not enough temporary space. > Do you want me to submit a v2 of this patch without the dracut directive? O= r should I > commit this straight to next, and you cherry-pick it into master? We should either ship everything, or generate everything. I don=E2=80=99t thi= nk a mix is good idea. > Thanks, and best regards, > Peter M=C3=BCller >=20 >> I do not really have much of a preference. The only thing I want to say is= that ARM needs to get their shit together and being able to load a regular i= mage instead of asking for extra commands here - or build that into dracut. >> -Michael >>> On 7 Jul 2022, at 07:48, Peter M=C3=BCller w= rote: >>>=20 >>> Hello *, >>>=20 >>> to my understanding, we do not need to ship "linux-initrd" if we can easi= ly >>> rebuild those on the systems anyway. I would prefer the latter, since that >>> keeps the update smaller. >>>=20 >>> This was also raised somewhere in the community a while ago, but I am una= ble >>> to find the correspondent thread at the moment. >>>=20 >>> How do we proceed here? >>>=20 >>> Thanks, and best regards, >>> Peter M=C3=BCller >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> https://community.ipfire.org/t/again-with-the-file-system-full-core-169/= 8186 >>>>=20 >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter M=C3=BCller >>>> --- >>>> config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >>>>=20 >>>> diff --git a/config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh b/config/rootfiles/core= /169/update.sh >>>> index 3902e2d45..50f0bd8a4 100644 >>>> --- a/config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh >>>> +++ b/config/rootfiles/core/169/update.sh >>>> @@ -150,6 +150,19 @@ ldconfig >>>> # Apply sysctl changes >>>> /etc/init.d/sysctl start >>>>=20 >>>> +# Regenerate all initrds >>>> +dracut --regenerate-all --force >>>> +case "$(uname -m)" in >>>> + armv*) >>>> + mkimage -A arm -T ramdisk -C lzma -d /boot/initramfs-${KVER}-ipfire.i= mg /boot/uInit-${KVER}-ipfire >>>> + rm /boot/initramfs-${KVER}-ipfire.img >>>> + ;; >>>> + aarch64) >>>> + mkimage -A arm64 -T ramdisk -C lzma -d /boot/initramfs-${KVER}-ipfire= .img /boot/uInit-${KVER}-ipfire >>>> + # dont remove initramfs because grub need this to boot. >>>> + ;; >>>> +esac >>>> + >>>> # Start services >>>> telinit u >>>> /etc/init.d/firewall restart --===============2213581440852671065==--