[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100217222959.GD27815@lapse.rw.madduck.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:29:59 +1300
From: martin f krafft <madduck@...duck.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Cc: david@...g.hm, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@...glemail.com>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@...mpydevil.homelinux.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
"Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@...y-dragons.com>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
Michael Evans <mjevans1983@...il.com>
Subject: boot times, not mdadm (was: Linux mdadm superblock question.)
also sprach Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com> [2010.02.18.1037 +1300]:
> > the assembly time would probably be the same, but the initramfs being
> > proposed did not include that time either.
>
> This was the *only* time that was included. Quoting myself:
If you are discussing boot times rather than mdadm, might I suggest
you change the subject line?
Upstream is keen on finally dropping kernel autoassembly, and
I support that because of the gained flexibility. Boot times are
important for laptops and desktops, which are hardly the primary
target of RAID.
Anyway, this is FLOSS. If you want kernel autoassembly, take over
the code and bring it up to speed.
--
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
"what's your conceptual continuity? --
well, it should be easy to see:
the crux of the bisquit is the apopstrophe!"
-- frank zappa
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@...duck.net
Download attachment "digital_signature_gpg.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists