From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp209.alice.it ([82.57.200.105]:48888 "EHLO smtp209.alice.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755329Ab2FUFrh (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:47:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4FE2B576.3030301@libero.it> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:47:34 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: kreijack@inwind.it, 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> <4FE20B3D.5060704@zytor.com> <4FE21134.9090501@libero.it> <4FE2455E.2090007@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4FE2455E.2090007@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/20/2012 11:49 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 06/20/2012 11:06 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >> >> Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am >> only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some advantages. >> >> Few year ago there are some gains to have a separate /boot (ah, the time >> when the bios were unable to address the bigger disk), where there are >> the minimum things to bootstrap the system. >> > > There still is (in fact this exact problem has made a comeback, as there > are plenty of BIOSes which have bugs above the 2 TB mark); however, > there are also issues with RAID (firmware often cannot address all the > devices in the system -- and no, that isn't ancient history, I have a > system exactly like that that I bought last year), remote boot media > (your / might be on an iSCSI device, or even a network filesystem!) and > all kinds of situations like that. > > The bottom line is that /boot is what the bootloader needs to be able to > address, whereas / can wait until the kernel has device drivers. That > is a *HUGE* difference This leads to have a separately /boot filesystem. In this case I agree with you: make sense that the kernel is near the bootloader files. But if /boot has to be in a separate filesystem, which is the point to support btrfs at all ? Does make sense to support only a subset of btrfs features ? > >> 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 > > -hpa >