Messages in this thread | | | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Subject | Re: klibc (was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans) | Date | Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:25:31 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:10, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Followup to: <200606071400.49980.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> > By author: Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > Hi. > > > > Sorry for coming in late. I've only just resubscribed after my move. > > > > Not sure who originally said this... > > > > > > > problems it entails.) The initial code to have removed > > > > > is the root-mounting code, with all the various ugly > > > > > mutations of that (ramdisk loading, NFS root, initrd...) > > > > Could I get more explanation of what this means and its implications? I'm > > thinking in particular about the implications for suspending to disk. > > Will it imply that everyone will _have_ to have an initramfs with some > > userspace program that sets up device nodes and so on, even if at the > > moment all you have is root=/dev/hda1 resume2=swap:/dev/hda2? > > Yes. That initramfs is embedded in the kernel image. > > > Along similar lines, I had been considering eventually including support > > for putting an image in place of the initrd (for embedded). > > You can still override the default buildin initramfs. Then you get > the benefit of not carrying a bunch of code with you that can never be > executed.
Ok. Ta. I guess I should put some time into learning this prior to 2.6.18 then, so I can help others through the transition.
Regards,
Nigel -- Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |