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.
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.
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.