s a lot better
than nothing. I really don't think it's ok for grub-mkconfig to assume
something else is going to properly sync, unmount, or remount-ro whatever
file system the grub.cfg is being written to. grub-mkconfig needs to take
responsibility for its own action, and ensure complete and
pproximate time frame for getting this
fixed, to know whether for Fedora 29 /boot on XFS should be inhibited
until a proper tested patch for GRUB exists.
Thanks,
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:12:27PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> xfsprogs 4.16.0 defaults to enabling "sparse inode" which is not
>> compatible with GRUB.
>>
>> Dow
thank you for posting the patch. LGTM.
>
> Chris, may I ask you to test it and add your "Tested-by:" if it works?
Fedora openQA (which caught the bug) now passes. I did a separate test
making sure sparse inode feature is enabled and grub-probe,
grub-install, grub-mkconfig
? This used to be safe, but now with reflink
support, grubenv could be reflink copied, meaning any overwrite is
disallowed and must be COW'd. How is that handled?
I'm pretty sure on Btrfs GRUB knows is can't write to grubenv, I'm
just curious about the other case
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GRUB code can certainly read files that are on Btrfs, md devices,
> LUKS, LVM, and so on. But GRUB code can also write to the physical
> block for grubenv - but are there safe guards that prevent it from
> doing s
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 01:40:06PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > GRUB code can certainly read files that are on Btrfs,
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 04:45:51PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 01:40:06PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Sep 17,
more than the first 4 MiB are needed, let me know.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JgPv8EBHDn5A7hTEwewGK1MuFHvHbJnr
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
.
Fedora ISO's use isohybrid and have multiple partitions on their ISOs:
MBR, GPT, and APM.
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/11285.html
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
ot either my Macbook Pro or my hp spectre (2016). I
have to MBR or GPT partition a USB stick, format it FAT32, and cp -a
the files onto it, that the HP will boot, still the Mac will not (that
2011 Mac will not USB boot with the CSM; CSM booting is only possib
ernel to get it to support faster storage devices such as NVMe.
A possible use case would be resuming from a hibernation image.
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:02 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
> SSD partition layout:
> 1 FAT32 EFI system partition (unused)
> 2 APFS (macOS)
> 3 HFS+ (used as ESP by Fedora)
> 4 Btrfs, sysroot
> 5 swap
> 6 Btrfs, sysroot
I goofed that up a bit:
1 FAT32 EFI system partition, unused
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:02 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Hardware:
> Macboo Pro 8,2 (2001)
> (1) Samsung SSD drive
> (1) internal DVD-ROM drive
> (2) USB 2, nothing external connected but built-in keyboard shows up
> as USB device
> (1) wired ethernet
> firmware,
[
ce.
Photos of "lsefi" output
https://photos.app.goo.gl/pBxLJNdbzz6J9Vo56
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
volumes?
When I do 'ls (hdX)/' I consistently get an error from
efidisk.c:602:failure reading sector 0x80 for each of hd0, hd1, hd2,
hd3. For hd4 I get a different error which is fs.c:120:unknown file
system.
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel m
g
between the preboot and booted environments, which is the point of
grubenv, but it can't work much of the time due to the above
limitations.
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:08 AM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:58:23PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's not possible for GRUB pre-boot environment to write to grubenv
> > when it's on Btrfs, ZFS, LVM, mdadm raid,
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 3:17 AM Michael Chang via Grub-devel
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 04:58:23PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's not possible for GRUB pre-boot environment to write to grubenv
> > when it's on Btrfs, ZFS, LVM,
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 2:59 AM Michael Chang wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 08:36:05PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > So is the next era going to be we recommend /boot on FAT?
>
> No. I meant a new partition type only for grubenv files and keep
> everything else as is.
grubenv only for that purpose. I'd like to see
more consistency, fewer exceptions.
And that also means the old argument about the MBR gap. GRUB should
have its own partition here too.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
se. Or even make it explicitly a GRUB
bootloader partition type GUID. It's better if each bootloader has its
own? Originally BIOS Boot wasn't "owned" by GRUB, any bootloader can
use it, but insofar as I'm aware it's the only bootloader that uses
this partition typ
b.cfg much more generic and portable, searching
by partition types rather than by specific and unique file system or
partition UUIDs.
Thanks,
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
Forgot to mention, I do see GRUB knows about "BIOS boot" partition
type guid, when it comes to the grub-install command. But I'm not sure
if GRUB as a concept of doing a search by arbitrary partition type
codes.
Thanks,
Chris Murphy
___
y will expand due
to the Windows 11 requirement that supporting hardware have TPM 2.0.
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
be made unambiguous, I'm not
super fussy how that's done. The advantage of this is permitting
static creation of configuration files, less dependency on customized
configuration.
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
t;BootNext" for this use case? Or else I guess distros need to consider
removing the creation of a Windows menu entry, as there's no point
creating menu entries that don't work.
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 10:18 AM Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:48:43PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > One idea I've heard floated is, having GRUB alter efivars such that
> > BootNext is changed to do a one time boot of Windows, instead of using
&
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:29 PM Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:46:33AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 10:18 AM Lennart Sorensen
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:48:43PM -0700, Chris Murph
For all practical purposes, this is functionally the end to dual boot
in GRUB, if there is no work around, e.g. bootnext. Is that the
direction GRUB maintainers want to go in?
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:32 PM Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:14 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > For all practical purposes, this is functionally the end to dual boot
> > in GRUB, if there is no work around, e.g. bootne
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 5:00 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:32 PM Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:14 PM Chris Murphy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > For all practical purposes, this
enu, which causes GRUB to use --bootnext to do a
one-time boot using that UEFI boot entry, thus loading that distro's signed
shim+GRUB combo.
Or, is this just not a priority for the foreseeable future, and users will
have to use the UEFI firmware's built-in boot manager for this u
for the foreseeable future, and users
will have to use the UEFI firmware's built-in boot manager for this
use case?
This seems related to thread: "How to boot Windows when Bitlocker
enabled with key sealed in TPM External"
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2022-02/msg00
ring up this specific firmware
menu though...
Thanks,
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
using by referring to MBR, which mainly
exists only at LBA 0. In the case of extended partitions, the EBR
(using the same MBR format) is still outside the LBA range for Btrfs
to apply fitrim ioctl. The VBR however, would be inside that range,
and it's that 64KiB boot
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
>>> wrote:
>>>> As discussed on o
5f8fd37.0/
btrfs
# chroot
/mnt/sysimage/ostree/deploy/fedora-workstation/deploy/e52f5de4c5d3f52211ab216d5bf5331b81c929e967f9cbfcba3ad85e45f8fd37.0/
# grub2-probe /
grub2-probe: error: cannot find a device for / (is /dev mounted?).
--
Chris Murphy
___
G
o as if whatever it finds there is not at
all helpful.
inside
< 693 225 0:6 / /dev rw,nosuid shared:22 - devtmpfs devtmpfs
rw,seclabel,size=3999060k,nr_inodes=999765,mode=755
outside
> 21 71 0:6 / /dev rw,nosuid shared:22 - devtmpfs devtmpfs
> rw,seclabel,size=3999060k,nr_ino
error: cannot find a device for / (is /dev
mounted?).
[root@localhost /]#
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
paths are not really subvolumes. I hope that makes sense...
If grub-probe does not parse for subvol= then that's not likely the
problem here.
--
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
malware.
Your complaint is with OEMs way more than Microsoft, and way more than GNU
GRUB2.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
le option to disable Secure Boot on
x86, but not ARM.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
uot; and
"trusted boot". There isn't anything particularly private or secret about the
contents of /boot so encryption doesn't seem to be indicated. But there's some
legitimacy to concerns about whether the code being boote
On Sep 25, 2012, at 6:17 AM, yannubu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> With 1.99, i only had to use 'grub-install' (without any parameter, and not
> necessarily booted in EFI mode).
> It would be nice (for retrocompatibility) if 2.00 could do the same (eg it
> could guess the 32/64 architecture, and set
ot;the EFI System Partition" root.
So --help, at the moment, is almost useless. I have to poke it with a stick to
find out how it's going to work.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
r where it will
land. The entry for --efi-directory leaves it up to the imagination.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
pure GRUB
comedy. Maybe it's an inside joke to tell people to go read non-existent
documentation.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Sep 26, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>
> It's an empty discussion since I have no time to write this doc and
> nobody else proposed himself to do it. Until this changes this
> discussion has no point.
You have no time to write a doc you're admitting needs wr
what SUSE is doing, which is a bit different, and worth
looking into as well. This most recent post may be most applicable but sorta
depends on understanding the background:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/17542.html
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing
On Oct 10, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 06:32:49PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>> Basically Fedora 18 will be the first Fedora to support UEFI Secure
>> Boot. They are moving to a shim bootloader before GRUB2 because GRUB2
>>
rtition to sector 2048, and for 512
byte sectors that's 1MB. Since the MBR consumes LBA 0, which is 512 bytes,
core.img can be as large as 1048064 bytes.
If the gap is too small, then core.img can't be embedded in the space.
Installation fails.
Chris Murphy
_
like some subjective (certainly objective limits are OK) limit for number of
member devices is acceptable, but needs to be known, so that installers can
inhibit or warn users from creating unbootable arrays. And then how to
communicate this downst
d3)
Yet there are 11 devices attached. This is VirtualBox, so this very well may be
a vbox limitation. I haven't tried it with KVM's SEABIOS yet.
With md RAID only (no Btrfs), ls reports:
(md/root) (hd0) (hd0,msdos1) (hd1) (hd1,msdos1) (hd2) (hd1,msdos2)
Chris Murphy
_
On Jan 4, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> With md RAID only (no Btrfs), ls reports:
> (md/root) (hd0) (hd0,msdos1) (hd1) (hd1,msdos1) (hd2) (hd1,msdos2)
Also with 11 devices attached.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub
es
+ test -f /boot/grub2/device.map
+ device_map=
I have previously fixed the missing modules part of this, but then get a kernel
panic when choosing the OS X options. I'll discuss that part after I resolve
where everything is supposed to go so I can file an appropriate Fedora bug, and
the work around for where things should go in the future.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
efi file if the ESP is not FAT32. I just tried replacing the JHFS+ ESP
with a FAT32 ESP, and I no longer get the error, and a new grubx64.efi is
installed, whereas with a JHFS+ ESP this is not the case.
So across the board, this isn't working for EFI Macs out of the box.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
G_2220.jpg
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
lls grub-mkconfig to produce
the initial grub.cfg, and uses grubby to add entries for kernel updates.
So actually I don't understand the question because Fedora itself would not
ever have detected another OS. Either it's manually added to grub.conf in the
old days, or it's aut
On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:06:32PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Fedora 15 and older, is GRUB 0.9x, and the grub.conf was manually produced
>> except for the Fedora entries (initially anaconda, and then after that for
&g
the higher
resolution of the display. I can't even think of any laptop or desktop LCD's
with a native resolution of 640x480. So to force it to a lower, and thus
non-native resolution, makes the problem worse.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mail
pected to write to for
customization for their target market.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
dimir replied to my comment inline, with the above. It wasn't supplied by
me, hence I haven't commented further.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
were to happen, would this enable your primary
boot loader to find either Fedora's grub.cfg, or core.img instead of depending
on a blocklist?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886502
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
e explanation uncompelling. If you find GRUB2 overly bloated and
complicated, then maybe you shouldn't expect your boot loader to boot from new
file systems; this isn't a required workflow. There's nothing wrong with bootfs
on FAT32 or ext[234] with syslinux or extlinux, i.e. t
yeah sure it's
real mode so code in a 512KB is literally being replaced with read in code.
That's chain loading.
And in any case, UEFI doesn't rely on boot sectors, let alone block lists. The
one and only boot loader you choose via the boot manager is expected to be
capable of reading the file system that contains the kernel and initramfs.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Feb 19, 2013, at 1:43 AM, Michael Chang wrote:
> 2013/2/19 Chris Murphy :
>>
>> It's also untrue. GRUB can first load a grub.cfg pointing to the grub.cfg of
>> each distribution; those distribution specific grub.cfg's are updated by
>> those distrib
The biggest argument for Fedora not being able to do this has been the
> claimed danger of block list corruption.
The biggest argument is:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872826#c10
> That's the only aspect of this discussion that is worth bothering the
> GRUB developers wi
y, I'm spacing the name of it at the moment.
If you need a simpler boot loader, with a simpler scripting language, check out
extlinux. But I'm not sure if it supports variable font sizes.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:20 PM, "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." wrote:
> We need grub to set console resolution, show the grub menu in that
> resolution, keep that resolution while the computer boots up, then when I
> type startx I have high resolution in X gui.
>
GRUB is responsible only for GRUB. As soon a
On Mar 4, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Bob Lemar wrote:
> - External drive is logically 4K (not a 512e thing). It is not a problem yet.
They are now shipping? When you use 'parted -l' does it say Sector size is
4096B/4096B or does it say 512B/4096B ? What model?
d have to tolerate
receiving 8x the data. I didn't know 4Kn drives were shipping yet. I'm not
finding anything remotely recent about this when googling it.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Mar 5, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 05.03.2013 00:16, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 12:43 PM, "Lennart Sorensen"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 08:33:5
-C
>>
>> The 1st 512 bytes reported is the PMBR, but the 2nd 512 bytes is garbage,
>> not the GPT header as expected.
>>
>
> It is possible that you need to read in physical sector size; what if
> you try bs=4k?
Right, for a 4Kn drive, to read LBA 1 and
On Mar 15, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:56:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Right, for a 4Kn drive, to read LBA 1 and get the GPT header I'd need:
>>
>> sudo dd if=/dev/disk3 skip=8 count=1 2>/dev/null | hexdump -C
>
On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 09:59:22AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>> If I want to see just the GPT header, which while only ~92 bytes, by spec it
>> gets its own sector, there's far less superfluous information usin
is in
a USB 3.0 enclosure, even if in theory the USB 3.0 drive should just fallback
to 2.0.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 18.03.2013 19:56, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Bob Lemar wrote:
>>
>>> Guys, forget about 4K sectors. The problem is starting USB att
and BIOS? It seems the 4Kn
release is premature. The 512e method has few downsides for any recent
partitioning tool, which ensures alignment, and they are also bootable without
concerns. I'm unaware of a downside.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub
ding LBA. I
don't know this yet, but I suspect this is how Apple has implemented 3TB
support for CSM booting (totally ill advised in my opinion).
GRUB+Linux of course can use GPT in such a case, so long as the BIOS bugs are
fixed to tolerate GPT (which some BIOS's notably Lenovo) t
does single user mode. It does other options too
> if you ask it to. Pretty darn simple to use.
Simple is pressing and holding an s key during boot to get single user mode.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
fficulties are due to
craptastic firmware implementations. If boot managers like GRUB did less to
smooth over the utter dog vomit firmware in the world, users would direct their
irritation elsewhere, where it properly belongs. But then we'd also have far
fewer bootable systems.
Chris Mur
GRUB want to grow into a more capable boot manager rather than just a
collection of bootloaders for different OS's.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
of the acronym MBP would be a
"MacBookPro" since Apple uses hybrid MBRs with Windows. So what's the question?
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
installer, presently they'll fail when installing to the disk device, i.e.
/dev/sda, where --force isn't applicable. It seems there'd need to be a test
for a sufficiently large MBR gap, and if not fallback to a way to embed into a
boot partition.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
layout. For such a layout, core.img is needed
for each disk.
Open question is if on BIOS hardware, if a 1MB BIOSBoot is preferred over the
64KB Btrfs bootloader pad? I don't know off hand if each member disk, or
subsequently added disks, each have this 64KB pad or just the first member.
On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 26.09.2013 22:51, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Open question is if on BIOS hardware, if a 1MB BIOSBoot is preferred over
>> the 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad? I don't know off hand if e
On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 13.10.2013 20:04, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26.09.2013 22:51, Chris Mu
On Oct 13, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 13.10.2013 22:59, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> How does one create a subvolume without a name? All subvolumes have had ID's
>> since at least 2008, and it's been possible t
On Oct 13, 2013, at 11:28 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:58:41 -0600
> Chris Murphy пишет:
>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13.10.2013 22:59, Chris Murp
pt subvolume in a subvolume, another a subvolume in a
directory): in both cases /proc/self/mountinfo reports / as the root, not the
full path or ID of the subvolume actually mounted.
Somehow it seems like the mountinfo root field should return a block device and
full path to th
nge grub-mkrelpath to match runtime behaviour.
> Is there a way to detect that mountinfo gives garbage and somehow get
> where the real root points?
Here's the response. It seems similar but not identical to what you described
above.
http://www.mai
On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 14.10.2013 22:45, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> So it seems tha
On Oct 14, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
> wrote:
>
>> On 14.10.2013 22:45, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder&#
On Oct 14, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Mon, 14 Oct 2013 22:50:10 +0200
> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
>
>> On 14.10.2013 22:45, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder
ubvol create /mnt/nested
# btrfs subvol list /mnt
ID 262 gen 135 top level 5 path dir1/sub1
ID 263 gen 140 top level 5 path dir2/sub2
ID 264 gen 140 top level 263 path nested
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
On Oct 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 15.10.2013 21:47, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I do not know whether it was the case in the pas
om top level 5 subvolume. That makes
things more clear and less complicated and also won't break bootability if the
user wants to e.g. always mount their current home subvolume by default, then
nothing else is affected.
Chris Murphy
___
Grub-deve
On Oct 15, 2013, at 8:45 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:47:14 -0600
> Chris Murphy пишет:
>
>>
>>> I'm not sure when and how top level may become != 5.
>>
>> starting where you left off with the sub2 subvolume mounted
>>
On Oct 15, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:20:14 -0600
> Chris Murphy пишет:
>
>>
>>> Is there a way to detect that mountinfo gives garbage and somehow get
>>> where the real root points?
>>
>> I don't know
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
