On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 19:35 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >> > I don't think > >> > there are any objections against supporting nested partitions. > >> Yes but I thought someone may have comments like "let's shave ths part > >> from the kernel". The patch doesn't increase the core.img because > >> increase of kernel size is compensated by pc.mod/bsdlabel.mod split. > >> It the cases when bsdlabel.mod is used usually no modules like raid or > >> lvm are used > > > > Such objections may be raised once there is a patch that compiles. > > Distributors must consider worst case scenarios. > > > If worst-case scenarios don't fit into mbr gap we may consider another > approaches > 1) progressive loading (e.g. FS-parsing bootsectors in worst case > bring some kind of stage1.5 back)
I don't think this would be very popular. > 2) replace lzma with xz I'm afraid it's the same thing essentially. > 3) use another embedding areas. E.g. lvm has to divide PV in PE of > equal length. This often results in last block of space being smaller > then PE. This space is reported by pvdisplay as unusable and we may > use it w/o problems. I'm not an lvm expert though so don't rely on my > word Or just use a separate partition. Actually, it's a fair game not to support some especially convoluted configurations. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
