From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753041AbbIQSXt (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:23:49 -0400 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:11949 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751868AbbIQSXr (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:23:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Failover root devices To: Drew DeVault References: <55FAA6BB.3060008@odi.ch> <20150917114955.GA2600@homura> <55FAFD1D.8030305@cmpwn.com> <55FAFDE1.2020707@nod.at> <55FB00E6.3090801@cmpwn.com> <55FB03B8.2000101@nod.at> <55FB03E8.3000604@cmpwn.com> <55FB0441.6040709@nod.at> <55FB0498.9060301@cmpwn.com> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ortwin_Gl=c3=bcck?= , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <55FB0531.3050006@nod.at> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:23:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55FB0498.9060301@cmpwn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 17.09.2015 um 20:21 schrieb Drew DeVault: > I'm not a fan of this idea. What downside is there to implementing it in the kernel? It trickles down in a consistent way and bonus points for supporting systems that don't use an > initramfs. The kernel is already super complicated and has millions of lines of code. If it can be done nicely in userspace, let's do it there and keep the kernel maintainable. Thanks, //richard