From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:31:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:31:46 -0500 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:22456 "EHLO e31.bld.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:31:34 -0500 Importance: Normal To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Venkatesh Ramamurthy Subject: RE: Linux not adhering to BIOS Drive boot order? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Bryan Henderson" Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:30:55 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM088/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.4a |July 24, 2000) at 01/16/2001 10:31:30 AM, Serialize complete at 01/16/2001 10:31:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >If we can truly go for label based mounting >and lilo'ing this would solve the problem. >>From a layering point of view, it makes a lot more sense to me for the label (or signature or whatever) for this purpose to be in the partition table than inside the filesystem. The parts of the system that assign devices their identities already know about that part of the disk. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/