From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:17:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:17:04 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([199.183.24.200]:62217 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 07:16:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:35:39 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Alexander Viro Cc: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, helgehaf@idb.hist.no, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Tweedie Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct char_device Message-ID: <20010524113539.K27177@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from viro@math.psu.edu on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:54:15PM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:54:15PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > > > > But I don't want an initrd. > > Don't be afraid of words. You wouldnt notice - it would do its > > job and disappear just like piggyback today. > > Andries, initrd code is _sick_. Our boot sequence is not a wonder of > elegance, but that crap is the worst part. I certainly can understand > people not wanting to use that on aesthetical reasons alone. It's the principle of a kernel-linked boot image, not initrd, which is important. Unpacking a cramfs image from an __init section is much cleaner than initrd and has almost the same effect: the boot filesystem just ends up readonly that way. Either way we can hook in that default user-space code at boot time transparently. --Stephen