[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:17:30 -0500 (EST), 
"Albert D. Cahalan" <> wrote:
>That's not a nice place. Besides the fact that is
>neither library nor module, /lib/modules is less likely to
>exist than /boot is. It's a wee bit slower too.

/boot is a hangover from old i386 systems that could not boot past
cylinder 1024 so you needed a special partition to hold the boot
images. That restriction does not exist on any system less than 5
years old nor on most non-i386 machines, the requirement for a special
/boot is obsolete on most machines. is not required for booting, it is only used after init
starts, therefore it does not belong in /boot anyway.

IA64 requires boot files to be in /boot/efi which must be a VFAT style
partition. Trust me, you don't want anything in /boot/efi unless you
have to.

For all those reasons, putting and .config in /boot is the
wrong thing to do. There is no point in creating yet another directory
to hold these files when /lib/modules/`uname -r` will do the job. Even
on systems with no modules, /lib/modules can be created to hold the
kernel specific files. I put my bootable kernels in /lib/modules as
well, then I have exactly one place to remove to get rid of an old

If it makes you feel happier, think of /lib/modules as 'kernel specific
data'. Pity about the name but it is hard coded into too many programs
to change it to /lib/kernel or /kernel.

>It's a wee bit slower too.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.081 / U:3.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site