On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, 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.
Hmm.. That might work, but at the same time I suspect that the most
fanatic embedded users are actually the ones that may benefit most from
ramfs in the first place. That was certainly why it came to be..
We'll see. We'll end up using ramfs for the initial init bootup (ie the
"tar.gz->ramfs" stage of bootup), so making it __init may not be practical
for other reasons. We'd have to unload it not after the __init stage, but
after the first root filesystem is unused (which may be later, depending
on what people put in the filesystem).
Linus
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 31 2001 - 21:00:12 EST