Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:17:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:17:48 -0400 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:33033 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:17:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:17:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Helge Hafting cc: Subject: Re: [Acpi] Re: ACPI fundamental locking problems In-Reply-To: <3B442354.BCA61010@idb.hist.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Helge Hafting wrote: > > I am fine with "You have to use initrd (or similiar) _if_ you want this > feature." Nope. I do not want to maintain two interfaces. If we make user space the way to do these things, then we will do pretty much most of the driver setup etc in user space. We'd have to: we'd enter user space before drivers have had a chance to initialize, exactly because "features like these" can change the device mappings etc. And I don't want to have two completely different bootup paths. > But please don't make initrd mandatory for those of us who don't > need ACPI, don't need dhcp before mounting disks and so on. You would never even know the difference. You'd do a "make bzImage", and the default filesystem would just be embedded into the image. By default it probably doesn't need to do much - although things like the BIOS DPMI scan etc would surely be good to get rid of. Why complain about that? Linus - 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/