Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Oct 2002 05:29:57 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Abbott and Costello meet Crunch Time -- Penultimate 2.5 merge candidate list. |
| |
Dave Cinege wrote:
>On Wednesday 30 October 2002 3:51, Erik Andersen wrote: > >Erik, > > > >>Both formats are simple. But cpio is simpler. >> >> > >untar runs about 5K...same as 'un-cpio'. No differece there. > Wrong. un-cpio is obviously smaller. Just look at the generated assembly... on any platform.
>But not from userland. Tar is used en masse, cpio isn't. >It's the only reason to use tar over cpio...I feel it's a >good one. > IOW you'd rather bloat the kernel because tarballs are popular...
>#1 I'll be reviewing initramfs and adding loading images from > >the kernel support. I don't deny it's a good thing to have. >
There is no need to add anything.
>My patch is the best of both because, it re-writes initrd >properly within a sane framework. (Not to mention I scrubed the hell >out of do_mounts.) > No need for this, initramfs means that initrd and do_mounts are moved out of the kernel.
>If you want to get rid of all the backwards compatible stuff >(IE identifing and loading raw images to /dev/ram0, >pivoting to /initrd) that's fine with me. The code is layed out now >so I can litterally cut it out 10K of that junk in 30 seconds. >Better yet I can ifdef it for the poor souls that still need it. > >
Or better yet use initramfs, where it simply doesn't exist in the kernel image at all :)
Jeff
- 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/
| |