Re: 2.5.2-pre2 forces ramfs on

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:

> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Legacy Fishtank wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:04:40PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Because it's small, and if it wasn't there, we'd have to have the small
> > > > "rootfs" anyway (which basically duplicated ramfs functionality).
> > > 
> > > Can ramfs=N longer term actually come back to be "use __init for the RAM
> > > fs functions". That would seem to address any space issues even the most 
> > > embedded fanatic has. 
> > 
> > Nifty idea... We could use __rootfs or similar in the module.
> 
> Um, folks - rootfs does _not_ go away after you mount final root over it.
> Having absolute root always there makes life much simpler in a lot of
> places...
> 
> What's more, quite a few ramfs methods are good candidates for library
> functions, since they are already shared with other filesystems and
> number of such cases is going to grow.

I guess this is o.k.  Assuming we get good code sharing between ramfs/rootfs
and shmfs.  As those both seem to be always compiled in.

Eric