Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:01:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:01:14 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:30612 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:01:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:01:01 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Rob Landley cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] klibc requirements, round 2 In-Reply-To: <20020116034128.CRCI26021.femail12.sdc1.sfba.home.com@there> 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 Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Rob Landley wrote: > Let's focus on how to separate the volatile parts of initramfs that have to > stay in the kernel tree, and the non-volatile parts that can talk to the rest > of the kernel through cleanly defined APIs the kernel must support. > > If a section of code can't talk to the kernel through a stable API, it can > never be moved out of the kernel tree, and there's not too much point in > moving it out of the kernel proper, really... The whole fscking point is to _avoid_ special API. System calls. Normal, usual system calls and nothing else. And frankly, moving out of the kernel tree is the least of my worries - if it's a normal userland code it's fine with me. I don't see any problems with having the first component of image generated when you build the kernel - as the matter of fact you want that, since there is no reason to have nfsroot code there if you don't support NFS, etc. - 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/