Re: Absence notice

[Pavel Roskin]

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