From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: kreijack@inwind.it
Cc: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@libero.it>,
cwillu <cwillu@cwillu.com>,
helmut@hullen.de, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: R: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:38:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FE323DB.1070507@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FE2B576.3030301@libero.it>
On 06/20/2012 10:47 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>
> 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 ?
>
Yes, and that's another good reason for /boot: btrfs supports that kind
of policy (e.g. "no compression or encryption in this subtree.")
>>
>>> 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
>
People have said that for 15 years. The reality is that firmware will
always be behind the curve, and *that's ok*, we just need to deal with it.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-21 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-20 12:02 R: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@libero.it>
2012-06-20 15:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-06-20 16:34 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-20 17:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-06-20 18:06 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-20 19:15 ` Helmut Hullen
2012-06-20 20:22 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-20 21:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-06-21 5:47 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-21 11:46 ` Martin Steigerwald
2012-06-21 17:05 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-21 13:38 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2012-06-21 17:05 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2012-06-21 17:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-06-20 12:10 Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@libero.it>
2012-06-20 11:51 Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@libero.it>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FE323DB.1070507@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=cwillu@cwillu.com \
--cc=helmut@hullen.de \
--cc=kreijack@inwind.it \
--cc=kreijack@libero.it \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.