From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailout07.t-online.de ([194.25.134.83]:51643 "EHLO mailout07.t-online.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752414Ab2FTTiW (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:38:22 -0400 Date: 20 Jun 2012 21:15:00 +0200 From: Hullen@t-online.de (Helmut Hullen) To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FE21134.9090501@libero.it> Subject: Re: R: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: helmut@hullen.de Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hallo, Goffredo, Du meintest am 20.06.12: [...] > 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. > 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 ? Where is the big problem? I use separate subdirectories for different kernels, p.e. "/boot/ 2.6.38.4" or "/boot/3.3.4" or "/boot/3.3.4-big". And these subdirs contain (p.e.) ".config", "vmlinuz", "initrd", "System.map". It's a very clear design. No incredibly long filenames. Viele Gruesse! Helmut