On 06/20/2012 11:06 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > > Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am > only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some advantages. > > Few year ago there are some gains to have a separate /boot (ah, the time > when the bios were unable to address the bigger disk), where there are > the minimum things to bootstrap the system. > There still is (in fact this exact problem has made a comeback, as there are plenty of BIOSes which have bugs above the 2 TB mark); however, there are also issues with RAID (firmware often cannot address all the devices in the system -- and no, that isn't ancient history, I have a system exactly like that that I bought last year), remote boot media (your / might be on an iSCSI device, or even a network filesystem!) and all kinds of situations like that. The bottom line is that /boot is what the bootloader needs to be able to address, whereas / can wait until the kernel has device drivers. That is a *HUGE* difference. > 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. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
