From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Subject: Re: Proposed enhancements to MD Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:56:46 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040113225646.GC21151@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <40043C75.6040100@pobox.com> <400457E3.5030602@adaptec.com> <20040113233320.23e4cfef.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040113233320.23e4cfef.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> To: Jure Pe??ar Cc: Scott Long , jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:33:20PM +0100, Jure Pe??ar wrote: > Looking at this chicken-and-egg problem of booting from an array from > administrator's point of view ... > > What do you guys think about Intel's EFI? I think it would be the most > apropriate place to put a piece of code that would scan the disks, assemble > any arrays and present them to the OS as bootable devices ... If we're going > to get a common metadata layout, that would be even easier. > > Thoughts? Why bother? We can have userland code running before any device drivers are initialized. And have access to * all normal system calls * normal writable filesystem already present (ramfs) * normal multitasking All of that - within the heavily tested codebase; regular kernel codepaths that are used all the time by everything. Oh, and it's portable. What's the benefit of doing that from EFI? Pure masochism?