[RAUC] mark-active

[RAUC] mark-active

[Middelschulte, Leif]

Hi,

I was wondering about the intention of `mark-active [booted]`. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the docs[0] though.

So here is the paragraph in question:
"Last but not least, after switching to a different slot by mistake,
this can be remedied by choosing booted as the argument which is, by the way,
the default if the optional argument has been omitted."

To me this appears missleading, as it reads like:
"You (unintentionally) managed to boot the wrong slot and want to go back?
 Use `rauc status mark-active booted`!"

But instead it will mark the currently (unintentionally booted) slot as the permanent primary [1], won't it?

Maybe I'm just missing something here though.

Cheers,

Leif

[0] http://rauc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/using.html#manually-switch-to-a-different-slot
[1] https://github.com/rauc/rauc/blob/66cdb4d53350f65b75fc190267b40e4bb3920fa0/src/mark.c#L105
_______________________________________________
RAUC mailing list

Re: [RAUC] mark-active

[Ulrich Ölmann]

Hi Leif,

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:01:11AM +0000, Middelschulte, Leif wrote:
> I was wondering about the intention of `mark-active [booted]`. Maybe I'm
> misinterpreting the docs[0] though.
> 
> So here is the paragraph in question:
> "Last but not least, after switching to a different slot by mistake, this can
> be remedied by choosing booted as the argument which is, by the way, the
> default if the optional argument has been omitted."
> 
> To me this appears missleading, as it reads like:
> "You (unintentionally) managed to boot the wrong slot and want to go back? Use
>  `rauc status mark-active booted`!"
> 
> But instead it will mark the currently (unintentionally booted) slot as the
> permanent primary [1], won't it?
> 
> Maybe I'm just missing something here though.

you are right, the documentation leaves enough room to interpret it like you
did. What I intended to say was that one can utilize the shortcut "booted" to
revoke an erroneous modification of the bootloader's state if one recognizes it
early enough and the system has not yet been shut down already. Hence the docs
should be updated to read

  "Last but not least, after switching to a different slot by mistake, before
  having rebooted this can be remedied by choosing booted as the argument which
  is, by the way, the default if the optional argument has been omitted."

This should be precise enough to put away the ambiguity that you stumbled over.
Do you agree?

Best regards
Ulrich
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
RAUC mailing list

Re: [RAUC] mark-active

[Middelschulte, Leif]

Hello Ulrich,

Am Dienstag, den 05.12.2017, 10:14 +0100 schrieb Ulrich Ölmann:
> Hi Leif,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:01:11AM +0000, Middelschulte, Leif wrote:
> > I was wondering about the intention of `mark-active [booted]`. Maybe I'm
> > misinterpreting the docs[0] though.
> > 
> > So here is the paragraph in question:
> > "Last but not least, after switching to a different slot by mistake, this can
> > be remedied by choosing booted as the argument which is, by the way, the
> > default if the optional argument has been omitted."
> > 
> > To me this appears missleading, as it reads like:
> > "You (unintentionally) managed to boot the wrong slot and want to go back? Use
> >  `rauc status mark-active booted`!"
> > 
> > But instead it will mark the currently (unintentionally booted) slot as the
> > permanent primary [1], won't it?
> > 
> > Maybe I'm just missing something here though.
> 
> you are right, the documentation leaves enough room to interpret it like you
> did. What I intended to say was that one can utilize the shortcut "booted" to
> revoke an erroneous modification of the bootloader's state if one recognizes it
> early enough and the system has not yet been shut down already. Hence the docs
> should be updated to read
> 
>   "Last but not least, after switching to a different slot by mistake, before
>   having rebooted this can be remedied by choosing booted as the argument which
>   is, by the way, the default if the optional argument has been omitted."
> 
> This should be precise enough to put away the ambiguity that you stumbled over.
> Do you agree?
Sounds good to me.

> 
> Best regards
> Ulrich
> 

Best regards,

Leif
_______________________________________________
RAUC mailing list

Re: [RAUC] mark-active

[Ulrich Ölmann]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:55:18AM +0000, Middelschulte, Leif wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 05.12.2017, 10:14 +0100 schrieb Ulrich Ölmann:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:01:11AM +0000, Middelschulte, Leif wrote:
> > > I was wondering about the intention of `mark-active [booted]`. Maybe I'm
> > > misinterpreting the docs[0] though.
> > > 
> > > So here is the paragraph in question:
> > > "Last but not least, after switching to a different slot by mistake, this can
> > > be remedied by choosing booted as the argument which is, by the way, the
> > > default if the optional argument has been omitted."
> > > 
> > > To me this appears missleading, as it reads like:
> > > "You (unintentionally) managed to boot the wrong slot and want to go back? Use
> > >  `rauc status mark-active booted`!"
> > > 
> > > But instead it will mark the currently (unintentionally booted) slot as the
> > > permanent primary [1], won't it?
> > > 
> > > Maybe I'm just missing something here though.
> > 
> > you are right, the documentation leaves enough room to interpret it like you
> > did. What I intended to say was that one can utilize the shortcut "booted" to
> > revoke an erroneous modification of the bootloader's state if one recognizes it
> > early enough and the system has not yet been shut down already. Hence the docs
> > should be updated to read
> > 
> >   "Last but not least, after switching to a different slot by mistake, before
> >   having rebooted this can be remedied by choosing booted as the argument which
> >   is, by the way, the default if the optional argument has been omitted."
> > 
> > This should be precise enough to put away the ambiguity that you stumbled over.
> > Do you agree?
> Sounds good to me.

Created a corresponding pull request, see [1].

Best regards
Ulrich


[1] https://github.com/rauc/rauc/pull/194
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
RAUC mailing list