From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030405AbWFITNK (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:13:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030418AbWFITNK (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:13:10 -0400 Received: from hobbit.corpit.ru ([81.13.94.6]:27216 "EHLO hobbit.corpit.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030405AbWFITNJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:13:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4489C83F.40307@tls.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:13:03 +0400 From: Michael Tokarev Organization: Telecom Service, JSC User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060318) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: klibc - another libc? References: <44869397.4000907@tls.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 OpenPGP: id=4F9CF57E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org H. Peter Anvin wrote: [] >> Let's take booting from raid, in this case you need to install >> mdadm anyway, which could also provide an initramfs version. This >> way the setup tools can be generated from the same source, which >> reduces duplication and maintenance overhead. > > You don't need mdadm to boot from RAID. kinit handles it just fine. You *do* need mdadm to boot from RAID. Unless you rely on broken, obsolete, "don't use" in-kernel raid autodetection code (which, in this case, will be moved from kernel space into kinit). There are many reasons why raid autodetection in its current form is not a good idea, all goes to simple "unreliable" definition - there where many discussions about this already. Well ok, mdadm/Assemble.c can be merged into kinit instead of current stuff present there, and adopted somehow. Until when, mdadm IS necessary. Ok, the next question may be 'and what about lvm?', or dm, or whatever else.. Md autodetection code has been in kernel for a long time, while lvm/dm/etc stuff wasn't. So there IS a difference... ;) But I see a reason for kinit *now*, in its current form - it's compatibility. Later on, maybe the whole stuff can be removed entirely, to rely on external tools for booting. Existing mkinitrd/mkinitramfs/ etc solutions works, they're being improved all the time, and they don't use kinit. Did I get it all right? :) Thanks. /mjt