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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).