Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:23:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:23:40 -0500 Received: from wire.cadcamlab.org ([156.26.20.181]:36613 "EHLO wire.cadcamlab.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:23:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:22:32 -0600 To: Jeremy Jackson Cc: Jeremy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VFS: Cannot open root device Message-ID: <20010306142232.C28368@cadcamlab.org> In-Reply-To: <20010303011000.1832.qmail@web4203.mail.yahoo.com> <3AA04B88.9B4E5AF8@coplanar.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <3AA04B88.9B4E5AF8@coplanar.net>; from jerj@coplanar.net on Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 08:40:24PM -0500 From: Peter Samuelson Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Jeremy Jackson] > try command 'man mkinitrd' under redhat for hints about initial > ramdisk. I have been puzzled about this for quite some time. Why exactly does everyone always recommend using 'mkinitrd' on Red Hat systems? It seems to me that if you are compiling a kernel for a specific server anyway, it is a much more reliable proposition to just compile in whatever drivers you need to boot. initrd's are inherently clumsy and fragile, to my way of thinking. I've always thought they should only be used to support diverse or unknown hardware, or odd cases like crypto loopback root. Are there other advantages to 'mkinitrd' in the case of a custom kernel for a single machine? Peter - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/