Note for those pulling in new ZFS feature flags

[Chris Nehren]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 13:29:51 +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> > Oddly enough, I was bitten by this recently, too, and had the same 
> > thing happen.  I upgraded a pool and was struck by the fact that I 
> > *wasn't* urged to update the boot code and so, after pondering "maybe 
> > this means I don't have to" decided not to.  Of course, the system 
> > wouldn't boot and I had to rescue it via a memstick.
> 
> Makes me wonder:
> 
> What might the issues be with upgrading the bootcode for users post-upgrade?

Are you asking, in other words, what problems could come from
fixing the bootcode automatically whenever it's needed?  The
immediate, obvious concern is that maybe the bits sourced to do
so aren't valid for the pool in question[0] or don't exist.  The
latter is easy to check for of course.  I'm afraid I don't know
enough to judge the former.

[0]: Although I can't imagine a situation when that'd be the
case, that doesn't mean such a sitaution doesn't exist.

-- 
Chris Nehren
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 919 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20140408/70784bf2/attachment.sig>