Re: How far has initramfs got ?

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

Followup to:  <20020428174230.GE18102@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu>
By author:    Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> I would like to add that perhaps using tmpfs instead of ramfs would be
> a nice touch. As the initial ramfs would get overmounted instead of
> unmounted, this allows the contents of the initial fs to get swapped
> out instead of either taking up memory indefinitely.
> 

Baloney.  You can't swap out what is actively in use, and something
that's overmounted is actively used.  You're supposed to clean up the
contents before overmounting.  I discussed with viro a scheme (using
two ramfs's) which made that close to automatic, but I think he
thought it was needless complexity.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>