Re: [PATCH] initramfs: Allow rootfs to use tmpfs instead of ramfs

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Al Boldi wrote:
> > The main issue -- which I am not sure what effect this patch has -- is
> > that we would really like to move initramfs initialization even earlier
> > in the kernel, so that it can include firmware loading for built-in
> > device drivers, for example.
>
> I suspect, if there would be a problem with tmpfs, then ramfs would be no 
> different.

That is a very bold assumption (a.k.a. "just plain wrong".)  ramfs and 
tmpfs are a lot more different than one would normally think from a 
kernel internals perspective.

> > Thus, if this patch makes it harder to push initramfs initialization
> > earlier, it's probably a bad thing.
>
> Agreed, but remember that tmpfs is an option, not a replacement.

Red herring.  If it goes in, it needs to be supportable going forward.

> > If not, the author of the patch
> > really needs to explain why it works and why it doesn't add new
> > dependencies to the initialization order.
> >
> > Saying "this is a trivial patch" and pushing it on the -stable tree
> > doesn't inspire too much confidence, as initialization is subtle.
>
> Ok, I did play with main.c, and as you mentioned, initialization is subtle.  
> But categorizing this patch as trivial is based more on the fact, that ramfs 
> and tmpfs are semantically equivalent, and as such should not impose 
> additional dependencies.

Again, that's just plain wrong.

	-hpa
-
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/