Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 17:07:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 17:07:02 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:26126 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 17:06:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 14:04:40 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alan Cox cc: Subject: Re: 2.5.2-pre2 forces ramfs on In-Reply-To: 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 Wed, 26 Dec 2001, 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. Hmm.. That might work, but at the same time I suspect that the most fanatic embedded users are actually the ones that may benefit most from ramfs in the first place. That was certainly why it came to be.. We'll see. We'll end up using ramfs for the initial init bootup (ie the "tar.gz->ramfs" stage of bootup), so making it __init may not be practical for other reasons. We'd have to unload it not after the __init stage, but after the first root filesystem is unused (which may be later, depending on what people put in the filesystem). 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/