[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.5.2-pre2 forces ramfs on
    Alexander Viro <> writes:

    > On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Legacy Fishtank wrote:
    > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:04:40PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
    > > > > Because it's small, and if it wasn't there, we'd have to have the small
    > > > > "rootfs" anyway (which basically duplicated ramfs functionality).
    > > >
    > > > Can ramfs=N longer term actually come back to be "use __init for the RAM
    > > > fs functions". That would seem to address any space issues even the most
    > > > embedded fanatic has.
    > >
    > > Nifty idea... We could use __rootfs or similar in the module.
    > Um, folks - rootfs does _not_ go away after you mount final root over it.
    > Having absolute root always there makes life much simpler in a lot of
    > places...
    > What's more, quite a few ramfs methods are good candidates for library
    > functions, since they are already shared with other filesystems and
    > number of such cases is going to grow.

    I guess this is o.k. Assuming we get good code sharing between ramfs/rootfs
    and shmfs. As those both seem to be always compiled in.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.020 / U:6.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site