Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.5.2-pre2 forces ramfs on | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 05 Jan 2002 15:35:15 -0700 |
| |
Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> 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.
Eric - 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/
| |