Re: [PATCH] initramfs: Allow rootfs to use tmpfs instead of ramfs

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Al Boldi wrote:
>>
>> The main issue -- which I am not sure what effect this patch has -- is
>> that we would really like to move initramfs initialization even earlier
>> in the kernel, so that it can include firmware loading for built-in
>> device drivers, for example.
> 
> I suspect, if there would be a problem with tmpfs, then ramfs would be no 
> different.
> 

That is a very bold assumption (a.k.a. "just plain wrong".)  ramfs and 
tmpfs are a lot more different than one would normally think from a 
kernel internals perspective.

>> Thus, if this patch makes it harder to push initramfs initialization
>> earlier, it's probably a bad thing.
> 
> Agreed, but remember that tmpfs is an option, not a replacement.

Red herring.  If it goes in, it needs to be supportable going forward.

>> If not, the author of the patch
>> really needs to explain why it works and why it doesn't add new
>> dependencies to the initialization order.
>>
>> Saying "this is a trivial patch" and pushing it on the -stable tree
>> doesn't inspire too much confidence, as initialization is subtle.
> 
> Ok, I did play with main.c, and as you mentioned, initialization is subtle.  
> But categorizing this patch as trivial is based more on the fact, that ramfs 
> and tmpfs are semantically equivalent, and as such should not impose 
> additional dependencies.

Again, that's just plain wrong.

	-hpa