etc/init.d/zfs-functions.in: remove arch warning

[gyakovlev]

Signed-off-by: Georgy Yakovlev gyakovlev@gentoo.org

ZFS works and build-tested on those arches.
In fact it's even tested on arm and ppc, but those are 32bit arches.

Motivation and Context

Stop printing misleading warning on boot.

Description

I extended the check to known-good uname -m values.

diff --git a/etc/init.d/zfs-functions.in b/etc/init.d/zfs-functions.in
index 490503e91..abc8617df 100644
--- a/etc/init.d/zfs-functions.in
+++ b/etc/init.d/zfs-functions.in
@@ -294,12 +294,17 @@ checksystem()
        # Just make sure that /dev/zfs is created.
        udev_trigger
 
-       if ! [ "$(uname -m)" = "x86_64" ]; then
-               echo "Warning: You're not running 64bit. Currently native zfs in";
-               echo "         Linux is only supported and tested on 64bit.";
-               # should we break here? People doing this should know what they
-               # do, thus i'm not breaking here.
-       fi
+       case "$(uname -m)" in
+               aarch64|ppc64|ppc64le|x86_64)
+                       ;;
+               *)
+                       # should we break here? People doing this should know
+                       # what they do, thus i'm not breaking here.     
+                       echo "Warning: You're not running supported arch."
+                       echo "         Currently native zfs on Linux is only"
+                       echo "         supported and tested on 64bit arches"
+                       ;;
+       esac
 
        return 0
 }

How Has This Been Tested?

system boots, no longer prints a warning.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
• Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

• My code follows the ZFS on Linux code style requirements.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the contributing document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commit messages are properly formatted and contain Signed-off-by.

[c0d3z3r0]

what about this?

case "$(uname -m)" in
        *64*)
                ;;
        *)

[behlendorf]

Actually, these days thing work pretty reasonably even on 32-bit arches (and some more exotic ones like s390x). I think it would be reasonable to remove this very old warning entirely.

[behlendorf]

@gyakovlev would you mind refreshing this PR to simply remove the warning.

[gyakovlev]

@behlendorf done!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #9177 into master will decrease coverage by 5.42%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9177      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.89%   72.46%   -5.43%     
==========================================
  Files         389      371      -18     
  Lines      121558   119372    -2186     
==========================================
- Hits        94682    86500    -8182     
- Misses      26876    32872    +5996

Flag	Coverage Δ
#kernel	72.35% <ø> (-4.75%)	⬇️
#user	63.21% <ø> (-3.69%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e6cebbf...3caf12e. Read the comment docs.