Re: R: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo

H. Peter Anvin
2012-06-21T13:38:35Z

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