Re: [PATCH] update filesystems config. menu

jw schultz
2003-03-16T01:17:06Z

On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 01:31:59PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:08:44 -0800 (PST)
> > "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm having trouble decoding...
> >> What is it that "should be safest for most people"?
> >> Are you suggesting any changes here?
> >>
> >> And some of us don't use fs modules, just build what we need into the
> >> kernel. Do you know of any problems with doing this (related to ext2/ext3
> >> for example)?
> >>
> >
> > I was just saying that recommending it (ext2) compiled into the kernel and
> > not a module should be the safe route for newbies to kernel
> > compiles.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> > Those of us that have build a few to feel comfortable with it, will know to
> > compile the fs of our / partition into the kernel.
> >
> > Except if ext2 is not the most commonly used fs anymore. I guess a 'cool'
> > feature could be if the make system could 'detect' what your current root is
> > and warn if you do not have that compiled into your kernel, but I do not
> > know the limitations of it (the make system).
> >
> > Then on the other hand, would above be confusing if its a kernel
> > compiled for another box ?
>
> Yes, I'd say so, although the message could say something like:
> Kernel does not include a filesystem for / on this computer.
> And would it also have to check the capabilities of what's in the
> initrd? (not that I'm advocating any of this)

To me that sounds like a feature for the bootloader
config tool. That is the first time you have a firm
kernel to rootfs connection.

--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: jw@pegasys.ws

Remember Cernan and Schmitt