From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:43599 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759396Ab2FULqo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:46:44 -0400 From: Martin Steigerwald To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kreijack@inwind.it Subject: Re: R: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:46:40 +0200 Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , cwillu , helmut@hullen.de References: <32353828.234981340193742067.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4FE2455E.2090007@zytor.com> <4FE2B576.3030301@libero.it> (sfid-20120621_090410_016018_05466806) In-Reply-To: <4FE2B576.3030301@libero.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <201206211346.40683.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli: > > > > > >> Now we have the possibility to move the kernel near the modules, and > >> this could lead some interesting possibility: think about different > >> linux installations, with an own kernel version and an own modules > >> version; what are the reasons to put together under /boot different > >> kernel which potential conflicting names ? de facto standard ? > >> historical reasons ? Nothing wrong here; but also the idea to moving > >> the kernel under /lib/modules is not so wrong. > > > > > > > > No, it is completely, totally and very very seriously wrong. > > When a bootloader (and the bioses) will be able to address the whole > diskS, this will change.. Not now Why not the other way around? /boot/modules-3.4 or so. But either way, these are different discussions. H. Peter´s question was, if I understood correctly, whether to use subvolid or path? I tend to lean towards subvolid. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7