Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 16 May 2001 14:48:03 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1) |
| |
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to > > get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root > > on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root > > and follow_dotdot. Real root is mounted atop of the "absolute" one. > > Looks ok, but it also feels like 2.5.x stuff to me.
Umm... It might be, but * it makes fixing races in fs/super.c easier and we will need that in 2.4 (or, at least, backported to 2.4 at some point) * it's backwards-compatible. * it allows to kill tons of the ugliness in rd.c in obviously correct way, for values of obviously correct equal to "provably equivalent behaviour to the old code"
I think that it's OK for 2.4, but then I'm obviously biased (mostly by the fact that I know how much it allows to clean up without breaking any compatibility, including binary compatibility in the kernel). Up to you, indeed.
> Also, there's the question of whether to make ramfs just built-in, or make > _tmpfs_ built in - ramfs is certainly simpler, but tmpfs does the same > things and you need that one for shared mappings etc. > > Comments?
Well, since all I actually use in the full variant of patch is sys_mknod(), sys_chdir() and sys_mkdir()... IMO tmpfs is an overkill here. Maybe we really need minimal rootfs in the kernel (no regular files) and let ramfs, tmpfs, whatever-device-fs use it as a library. Al
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |