From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:09:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:49691 "EHLO h5.dl5rb.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20025530AbZD1PJv (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:09:51 +0100 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3SF9joD008715; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:09:46 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n3SF9hm2008328; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:09:43 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:09:42 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Shane McDonald Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [MIPS] Resolve compile issues with msp71xx configuration Message-ID: <20090428150942.GA28519@linux-mips.org> References: <20090427130952.GA30817@linux-mips.org> <10f740e80904270622u730ba067g660257847dc526de@mail.gmail.com> <20090428092005.GA2408@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 22515 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Shane McDonald wrote: > > If the rootfs really is in ram only (and thus you discard any changes to > > it) you can just use an initramfs which is a lot simpler than any of the > > cramfs and squashfs hacks and supported by platform-independent code. > The rootfs is ram only with a union mount of a jffs2 filesystem to retain > changes. The target system is a resource-constrained router board, and we > were trying to keep everything as small as possible. If I remember > correctly, this code originally came over from an internal 2.4 port on an > even more resource-constrained platform; perhaps there are better options in > today's world. > > I will look into a better solution to this problem. In the meantime, I'm > hesitant to remove the existing code -- I think I prefer to leave it > uncompilable until that solution is found. You may want to chainsaw it into a shape were it's usable in some way - for example with NFS root until you have a chance to sort this out. Ralf