From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] initmpfs v2: use tmpfs instead of ramfs for rootfs Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:06:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20130717160602.4b225ac80b1cb6121cbb489c@linux-foundation.org> References: <20130715140135.0f896a584fec9f7861049b64@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , "Eric W. Biederman" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Hugh Dickins , Jeff Layton , Jens Axboe , Jim Cromie , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Rusty Russell , Sam Ravnborg , Stephen Warren To: Rob Landley Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130715140135.0f896a584fec9f7861049b64@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Rob Landley wrote: > Use tmpfs for rootfs when CONFIG_TMPFS=y and there's no root=. > Specify rootfstype=ramfs to get the old initramfs behavior. > > The previous initramfs code provided a fairly crappy root filesystem: > didn't let you --bind mount directories out of it, reported zero > size/usage so it didn't show up in "df" and couldn't run things like > rpm that query available space before proceeding, would fill up all > available memory and panic the system if you wrote too much to it... The df problem and the mount --bind thing are ramfs issues, are they not? Can we fix them? If so, that's a less intrusive change, and we also get a fixed ramfs. > Using tmpfs instead provides a much better root filesystem. > > Changes from last time: use test_and_set_bit() for "once" logic. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org