From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8972A15483 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="jPsJHQXx" Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D33EFC2; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 04:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0353722.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3A2BqTN3001418; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:25 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=U4GW3P2afzSuZeJwablRfH+x7WynkauX03fHhisGn+w=; b=jPsJHQXxULwH3Ne2QwN64c88pX3Sozszl6BvMJbSJkLSO3e5R4lddN+ULlQfJDpJ3gOK 7HCkCmTG9dHNl8yid/qoSTj6OZeKFfAdXgIrV/vJxmEzBPoNrop5hcHwla3dHuVIGo44 VrNvX5ZfLSBlsn0PLlTR9h9oQiX7ETD8q1n6Gk8c7UNl78o1qCGfK4Os3Mq2qG6wYs2i J7NAZCqC20wCsanDtiIHoEmTytc4zsA9535tWiN2EsGrb9avkTKqgMbZHt/E99kIQez9 EKxWwH79tD8cX13Bnzw2TwzYMHRS8aU1vGlYW+JoUMcsZWQdm/ql5cozcPIcD5XL5WXH gA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u4b97r3cp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 02 Nov 2023 11:56:25 +0000 Received: from m0353722.ppops.net (m0353722.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3A2Bt2Lv009442; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:24 GMT Received: from ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dc.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.220]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u4b97r3c8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 02 Nov 2023 11:56:24 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3A29Ouuf000614; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:23 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.69]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3u1cmtekhr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 02 Nov 2023 11:56:23 +0000 Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.100]) by smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3A2BuMCA11010772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:23 GMT Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD98358057; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B4758058; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-f45666cc-3089-11b2-a85c-c57d1a57929f.ibm.com (unknown [9.61.114.184]) by smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 11:56:20 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <2061e234534c4d406b92999b9ca5c7f2194e3c9d.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rootfs: Use tmpfs for rootfs even if root= is given From: Mimi Zohar To: Rob Landley , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stefan Berger Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Milton D. Miller II" , Jeff Layton , Jens Axboe , Jim Cromie , Sam Ravnborg , "Eric W. Biederman" , Alexander Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" , initramfs Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 07:56:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <6dae6aa6-e6c6-89d6-f9d7-7563708f7662@landley.net> References: <20231031154417.621742-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com> <2023103159-punctuate-amount-f09d@gregkh> <6dae6aa6-e6c6-89d6-f9d7-7563708f7662@landley.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-22.el8) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: LA3EKHwS9YWl5VU-g0QtntuPlTgb0O_q X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: XPN1q2d99Pws1JXGdbKDL4dcyZY7apea Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: initramfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.987,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-11-02_01,2023-11-02_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=847 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2310240000 definitions=main-2311020095 On Wed, 2023-11-01 at 06:35 -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 10/31/23 11:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:44:17AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > >> rootfs currently does not use tmpfs if the root= boot option is passed > >> even though the documentation about rootfs (added in 6e19eded3684) in > >> Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.rst states: > >> > >> If CONFIG_TMPFS is enabled, rootfs will use tmpfs instead of ramfs by > >> default. To force ramfs, add "rootfstype=ramfs" to the kernel command > >> line. > > > > At this point in time, is there even any difference between ramfs and > > tmpfs anymore? Why would you want to choose one over the other here? > > I submitted a patch to fix this to the list multiple times, which got ignored as > always. Most recently here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8244c75f-445e-b15b-9dbf-266e7ca666e2@landley.net/ Rob, the patch set wasn't upstreamed, but it certainly wasn't ignored. There were multiple comments. Can you at least re-post "[PATCH 5/5] fix rootfstype=tmpfs" after addressing the checkpatch.pl complaints? -- thanks, Mimi