lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectboot times, not mdadm (was: Linux mdadm superblock question.)
also sprach Nick Bowler <nbowler@elliptictech.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@madduck.net
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-17 23:33    [W:0.654 / U:0.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site