Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:42:55 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [Acpi] Re: ACPI fundamental locking problems |
| |
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote: > [...] > > We migth want to just make initrd a built-in thing in the kernel, > > something that you simply cannot avoid. A lot of these things (ie dhcp for > > NFS root etc) are right now done in kernel space, simply because we don't > > want to depend on initrd, and people want to use old loaders. > > > > I don't like the current initrd very much myself, I have to admit. I'm not > > going to accept a "you have to have a ramdisk" approach - I think the > > ramdisks are really broken. > > > > But I've seen a "populate ramfs from a tar-file built into 'bzImage'" > > patch somewhere, and that would be a whole lot more palatable to me. > > > > If anybody were to send me a patch that just unconditionally does this, I > > would probably not be adverse to putting it into 2.5.x. We have all the > > infrastructure to make all this a lot cleaner than it used to be (ie the > > "pivot_root()" stuff etc means that we can _truly_ do things from user > > mode, with no magic kernel flags).
Open 2.5 and I'm starting to feed that stuff in pieces...
> I am fine with "You have to use initrd (or similiar) _if_ you want this > feature."
"Similar" == ramfs.
> But please don't make initrd mandatory for those of us who don't > need ACPI, don't need dhcp before mounting disks and so on.
How about "don't want to keep special-case code for mounting root in your kernel"? It's more than ramfs, BTW, and rm(1) on ramfs frees memory just fine.
- 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/
| |