Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Mon, 3 Feb 2020 21:03:36 +0900 | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] Kbuild updates for v5.6-rc1 |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:07 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 01:16 Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> >> Generally, initramfs is passed from a boot-loader, >> but some architectures embed initramfs into vmlinux >> (perhaps due to poor boot-loader support??) > > > You didn't answer my real question. > > Why do we give the user the choice, when it doesn't matter, and the user doesn't care?
I do not want that commit simply reverted.
Please let me clarify what you want to see:
[1] Remove this choice completely ? The build system will choose the best one. For example, CONFIG_RD_XZ is enabled, '.xz' is _always_ preferred choice over '.gz'
[2] Hide this choice unless INITRAMFS_SOURCE!=""
As Geert mentioned, we still could save a little more data size, but we assume people would not care about hundreds bytes.
Which one ?
[2] was the previous behavior. I think you are complaining because you noticed a new prompt showed up.
> The argument for the commit was "it's simpler". > > But that is simply not *true*. > > It's simpler only technically. It's more complexity for the only party that matters: the user. > > So I'm likely going to just revert that commit as incorrect and misleading. It's not simpler at all. It's more complex. > > The configuration code should care about the user interface more than it seems to do. Some complexity in order to make for less pointless questions is food m good. > > Linus
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |