Re: 2.6 early userspace init

[Michael Schroeder <mls@suse.de>]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:45:19AM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 03:50, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> 
> > how about adding something like this to init/do_mounts.c?
> 
> It's not a bad idea, but surely you should be using the init= boot
> parameter instead of hard-coding a path.

I'm not so sure about this. One can argue that the init= parameter
should be evaluated by kinit when calling the real init.

> In any case, I don't think you should expect a patch to be accepted. 
> There's not much point in further crufting up do_mounts.c in generic
> kernels during 2.6, until do_mounts moves completely out of the kernel. 
> Some people are happy enough with root=0:0, so there's not obviously a
> consensus about which stopgap measure will do for now.

Well, root=0:0 also needs a kernel patch and has the disadvantage
that one cannot specify the desired root as a boot option.

The point is that it is impossible to use initramfs as a
initrd replacement with the current code (2.6-test9), so one 
of the patches should go in, either the 0:0 patch or my patch.

Cheers,
  Michael.

-- 
Michael Schroeder                                   mls@suse.de
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}