I've changed the ext2 / kernel versioning stuff.
Question is not a double negative anymore.
Default on non-arm is 2.2 support;
Default on arm is 2.0 support
I am considering changing this so that it doesn't even prompt, but
just goes with the defaults, unless 'verbose' is on.
Thoughts?
--
Adam Di Carlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On another topic: currently, the default ext2 partition formatting
provides backward support for 2.0 kernels. Would anyone object if I
change the default to 2.2 (and later) kernels? I noticed that the arm
message (in
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 05:31:50AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
What advantages does it give if a filesystem does not support Linux 2.0?
significantly faster mount times on large filesystems.
were talking one second vs 10 or more on a 7GB filesystem IME.
--
Ethan Benson
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 05:31:50AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
Adam Di Carlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On another topic: currently, the default ext2 partition formatting
provides backward support for 2.0 kernels. Would anyone object if I
change the default to 2.2 (and later) kernels? I
Yes, let's drop it except on ARM, which needs it for their
bootloader. No other boot loader requires the ext2 from 2.0 and can't
cope with the ext2 from 2.2 kernels (unless I'm mistaken).
I'm not sure if that's even true any more. The ARM boot-floppies require a
fairly recent version of
5 matches
Mail list logo
