X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [74.117.190.25]) by lists.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D19F5C4C88 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:11:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530E99E2205; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:11:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw (15.63.200.37.customer.cdi.no [37.200.63.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: n@tanael.org) by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D3279E21EB; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:11:49 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 18:11:42 +0200 From: Natanael Copa To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?U/ZyZW4=?= Tempel Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: [alpine-devel] Re: [alpine-aports] [PATCH] main/mkinitfs: backport cryptdiscards patch Message-ID: <20170616181142.28b8a187@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> In-Reply-To: <20170614214434.GA17311@francium> References: <20170610100553.3112-1-soeren+git@soeren-tempel.net> <20170612113737.0d96dd0a@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> <20170612105504.GA22141@francium> <20170614152710.4f52282a@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw> <20170614214434.GA17311@francium> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-alpine-linux-musl) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:44:34 +0200 S=F6ren Tempel wrote: > On 14.06.17, Natanael Copa wrote: > > What do you think? Should we go for: > >=20 > > cryptroot=3D$device cryptdm=3D$dmname cyptdiscards=3Dyes cryptheader= =3D$header cryptoffset=3D$offset > >=20 > > or should we do: > >=20 > > cryptdevice=3D$device:$dmname:allow-discards cryptkey=3D$header:$offs= et =20 >=20 > Honestly I don't have a strong opinion on this. I believe the latter is > harder to read and besides we would break backwards compatibility if we > would switch to this scheme. >=20 > Do you have an opinion on this? Would you like to switch to the latter? Does anybody on alpine-devel have opinion on what the boot args should be f= or LUKS devices? -nc --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---