[Bug 771587] New: grub2 menu shown after s2disk
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c0 Summary: grub2 menu shown after s2disk Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE 12.2 Version: RC 1 Platform: All OS/Version: openSUSE 12.2 Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Bootloader AssignedTo: mchang@suse.com ReportedBy: lmuelle@suse.com QAContact: jsrain@suse.com Found By: Development Blocker: No The grub2 menu is shown even if the user requested a suspend to disk. I suggest to display no grub menu and instead to boot the suspended operating system. Else the user might select a different OS which might make use of the s2disk partition. That's also the habit as it has been many years with the previous grub versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c1
--- Comment #1 from Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c
Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c2
--- Comment #2 from Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c3
Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c4
Lars Müller
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c5
Jiri Slaby
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c6
--- Comment #6 from Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c7
--- Comment #7 from Jiri Slaby
The logic is in /usr/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d/99Zgrub (find-kernel-entry) and is there since grub. It matches the running kernel in the kernel config, like you described.
Yes. And I also wrote that the check is invalid. When I update a kernel I always have to delete /usr/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d/99Zgrub to be able to suspend to disk. And since you do the same for grub2 now, it does not make things better. It is actually a regression. And the config parsing in grub2-once is not nice and is error-prone. I bet this will get back to us soon as boomerang. (Unless you push the script upstream where developers ensure it's up-to-date.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c8
--- Comment #8 from Michael Chang
(In reply to comment #6)
Yes. And I also wrote that the check is invalid. When I update a kernel I always have to delete /usr/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d/99Zgrub to be able to suspend to disk.
Yes. It's true. (A reboot is necessary for the upgraded kernel)
And since you do the same for grub2 now, it does not make things better. It is actually a regression.
Ok.
And the config parsing in grub2-once is not nice and is error-prone. I bet this will get back to us soon as boomerang. (Unless you push the script upstream where developers ensure it's up-to-date.)
I don't think upstream would review the grub2-once as it's distro specific (like the grubby or grubonce) ? I'd suggest a way to disable the submenu, this would relief the people (or utilities) who want to use grub2-set-default or grub2-reboot. It's cumbersome to specify the full hierarchy of the boot entry, instead of a simple name or index. I can see upstream has a bug for it: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?36850 This would get rid of the complexity and grub2-once can be avoided. That is we could wrap grub2-reboot with a much more easy script .. Whether the config parser would reliably work is important, with my limited ability this is what I could do so far. If it can't pass the review here then I agree we'd better not proceed with a fix this way. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c9
Rafael Wysocki
BTW why is that magic needed at all? Currently kernels can resume whatever (reasonable) was suspended before. I.e. there is no need to boot the exactly same kernel as was suspended to resume a kernel (added Rafael to confirm this).
This only is the case on x86_64. 32-bit kernels still need the same kernel to be used as the boot one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c10
--- Comment #10 from Jiri Slaby
Yes. It's true. (A reboot is necessary for the upgraded kernel)
No, it is not for x86_64.
And the config parsing in grub2-once is not nice and is error-prone. I bet this will get back to us soon as boomerang. (Unless you push the script upstream where developers ensure it's up-to-date.)
I don't think upstream would review the grub2-once as it's distro specific (like the grubby or grubonce) ?
Why do you think so? grub2-once looks like a good feature to me.
I'd suggest a way to disable the submenu, this would relief the people (or utilities) who want to use grub2-set-default or grub2-reboot. It's cumbersome to specify the full hierarchy of the boot entry, instead of a simple name or index.
I can see upstream has a bug for it: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?36850
To tell the truth, I don't understand why submenus were introduced at all. I think they make things much worse.
This would get rid of the complexity and grub2-once can be avoided. That is we could wrap grub2-reboot with a much more easy script ..
Whether the config parser would reliably work is important, with my limited ability this is what I could do so far. If it can't pass the review here then I agree we'd better not proceed with a fix this way.
Yes, it works now, but it will definitely break with next release. Grub2 developers are crazy, so that they will change the config structure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c11
--- Comment #11 from Michael Chang
(In reply to comment #8)
Yes. It's true. (A reboot is necessary for the upgraded kernel)
No, it is not for x86_64.
And the config parsing in grub2-once is not nice and is error-prone. I bet this will get back to us soon as boomerang. (Unless you push the script upstream where developers ensure it's up-to-date.)
I don't think upstream would review the grub2-once as it's distro specific (like the grubby or grubonce) ?
Why do you think so? grub2-once looks like a good feature to me.
It's not fundamental, as the grub-reboot is the building block, the grub2once usage is more restricted. It's created to be easier to interface with openSUSE pm-utils and, afaics, Fedora, Ubuntu takes different approach and means. That why I think it's distro specific (the same role as grubonce and grubby)
I'd suggest a way to disable the submenu, this would relief the people (or utilities) who want to use grub2-set-default or grub2-reboot. It's cumbersome to specify the full hierarchy of the boot entry, instead of a simple name or index.
I can see upstream has a bug for it: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?36850
To tell the truth, I don't understand why submenus were introduced at all. I think they make things much worse.
It's panful when you want to set default entry you have to give a looooong entry name, the xen case is even much more worse as it has 3 levels .. it's very easy to make mistake in manual. Also the default highlight is confusing, it's not on the inner-most menuentry, but on the outer-most (1st level) of submenu. In contrast to other bootloader config, which is much more easy and numeric index is acceptable.
This would get rid of the complexity and grub2-once can be avoided. That is we could wrap grub2-reboot with a much more easy script ..
Whether the config parser would reliably work is important, with my limited ability this is what I could do so far. If it can't pass the review here then I agree we'd better not proceed with a fix this way.
Yes, it works now, but it will definitely break with next release. Grub2 developers are crazy, so that they will change the config structure.
I think the grub2once should cover the case of "no submenu" (aka only menuentry directive is used in the config) as it's a special case of submenu. Unless the meaning of submenu or menuentry has changed, the grub2once should be guarenteed to work (otherwise it's considered a bug) :) Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c12
--- Comment #12 from Jiri Slaby
It's not fundamental, as the grub-reboot is the building block, the grub2once usage is more restricted. It's created to be easier to interface with openSUSE pm-utils and, afaics, Fedora, Ubuntu takes different approach and means. That why I think it's distro specific (the same role as grubonce and grubby)
Ok, thanks for clarification. I sent a request to factory some time ago already. Nevertheless, it is still pending... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c13
--- Comment #13 from Jiri Slaby
Ok, thanks for clarification. I sent a request to factory some time ago already. Nevertheless, it is still pending...
Actually untrue. It was accepted already: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/132054 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c14
--- Comment #14 from Jiri Slaby
(In reply to comment #12)
Ok, thanks for clarification. I sent a request to factory some time ago already. Nevertheless, it is still pending...
Actually untrue. It was accepted already: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/132054
Sorry for the email bombing. But we should still create a maintenance request for 12.2. Could you do that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c15
--- Comment #15 from Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c16
--- Comment #16 from Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c17
--- Comment #17 from Bernhard Wiedemann
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c18
--- Comment #18 from Bernhard Wiedemann
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c19
Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c20
--- Comment #20 from Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c21
Marcus Meissner
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c22
--- Comment #22 from Michael Chang
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c23
Marcus Meissner
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c24
--- Comment #24 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771587#c25
Torsten Duwe
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com