Re: Abbott and Costello meet Crunch Time -- Penultimate 2.5 merge candidate list.

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Dave Cinege wrote:

>On Wednesday 30 October 2002 3:51, Erik Andersen wrote:
>
>Erik,
>
>  
>
>>Both formats are simple.  But cpio is simpler.
>>    
>>
>
>untar runs about 5K...same as 'un-cpio'. No differece there.
>
Wrong.  un-cpio is obviously smaller.  Just look at the generated 
assembly... on any platform.

>But not from userland. Tar is used en masse, cpio isn't.
>It's the only reason to use tar over cpio...I feel it's a
>good one.
>
IOW you'd rather bloat the kernel because tarballs are popular...

>#1 I'll be reviewing initramfs and adding loading images from
>
>the kernel support. I don't deny it's a good thing to have.
>

There is no need to add anything.

>My patch is the best of both because, it re-writes initrd
>properly within a sane framework. (Not to mention I scrubed the hell
>out of do_mounts.)
>
No need for this, initramfs means that initrd and do_mounts are moved 
out of the kernel.

>If you want to get rid of all the backwards compatible stuff
>(IE identifing and loading raw images to /dev/ram0,
>pivoting to /initrd) that's fine with me. The code is layed out now
>so I can litterally cut it out 10K of that junk in 30 seconds.
>Better yet I can ifdef it for the poor souls that still need it.
>  
>

Or better yet use initramfs, where it simply doesn't exist in the kernel 
image at all :)

    Jeff