From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:39718 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752305Ab2FTRla (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:41:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4FE20B3D.5060704@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:41:17 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kreijack@inwind.it CC: Goffredo Baroncelli , cwillu , helmut@hullen.de, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: R: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo References: <32353828.234981340193742067.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4FE1EE52.20002@zytor.com> <4FE1FB9B.1090203@libero.it> In-Reply-To: <4FE1FB9B.1090203@libero.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/20/2012 09:34 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > > At the first I tough that having the /boot separate could be a good > thing. Unfortunately /boot contains both the bootloader code and the > kernel image. The kernel image should be in sync with the contents of > /lib/modules/.... > > This is the tricky point. If I handle /boot inside the filesystem > submodule a de-sync between the bootloader code and the boot sector > could happens. In I handle /boot as separate subvolume/filesystem a > de-sync between the kernel image and the modules could happens. > > Anyway, from a bootloader POV I think that /boot should be handle > separately (or as filesystem or as subvolume identified by specific ID). > The best could be move the kernel in the same subvolume as /lib/modules, > so a switch of the subvolume as root filesystem would be coherent. > You're not really answering the question. "The best could be move the kernel in the same subvolume as /lib/modules" isn't really going to happen... the whole *point* of /boot is that /boot contains everything needed to get to the point of kernel initialization. So, sorry, you're out to sea here... -hpa