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 -- 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
