Why doesn't initramfs use tmpfs instead of ramfs, because
tmpfs is more robust?
I know tmpfs is larger, but at least it should be an option.
Also, tar should be an option instead of cpio for the archiver,
because tar is more widely used.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
>> Why doesn't initramfs use tmpfs instead of ramfs, because
>> tmpfs is more robust?
>>
>> I know tmpfs is larger, but at least it should be an option.
>>
>> Also, tar should be an option instead of cpio for the archiver,
>> because tar is more widely used.
>You forgot to
>I have a path for initramfs to use tmpfs. It's sorta hacky so I never
>submitted it and solves a niche problem for embedded people.
>Ultimately we might one day still want to change how we initialize the
>early userspace (Al suggesting a reasomably nice way to move the
>decompresso
>>On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:52:37PM -0400, Wakko Warner wrote:
>>Care to send me the patch?
>Heh. Not really as I don't really know if people should be using it
>in it's current state --- the shmem init is very very hacky and I have
>other changes I've not had a chance to do.
>A
>It uses 50% of total memory for tmpfs, but it would be nice to have
>an option (tmpfs_size=90% etc.) that you could pass to the kernel.
>>that's just because of the tmpfs default; you can remount to change
>>that if it's not suitable once your up and running in your
>>init-scripts
>Also, tar should be an option instead of cpio for the archiver,
>because tar is more widely used.
>>pretty much everyone will have cpio and it's format is much
>>simpler/cleaner to deal with
>>if we want vastly more complex early-userspace semantics i think we
>>need to carefully
>On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:35:22AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I don't know, because tar is probably more widely used and
>consequently people are more familiar with how to use it.
>>As I said before, the cpio format is cleaner/easier to parse in the
>>kernel. Everyone has cpi
>Right, but it would be nice to have that option if initramfs
>using tmpfs becomes part of the kernel.
>>But it's not needed so why add bloat?
A 'tmpfs_size' option seems to just make sense given the fact that
the mount program has a 'size' option for tmpfs.
It makes sense if tmpfs beco
>Could you please please pretty please get an RFC compliant mailer that
>generates "In-Reply-To" and preferable even "References" headers?
>Right
>now every mail you write starts a new thread instead of referencing to
>the previous one. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/25/180/ to se
>On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:38:49AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What if you have a root.cpio.gz that requires 200MB to hold, but you
>only have 300MB of memory?
>
>50% of total memory wouldn't hold it, but 90% etc. would
>(tmpfs_size=90%).
>>tmpfs will not help you here.
>I'm not subscribed, so sorry if this doesn't fall into the original
>thread. I'm curious as to why the kernel has to include the decoder -
>why you can't just run a self-extracting executable in an empty
>initramfs (with a preset capacity if needs be).
The kernel already includes gunz
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 12:06:47PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:39:15PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to put overmount_rootfs in initramfs.c
> > and call it only if there's a initramfs?
>
> I don't see what or how that helps. Yes we can
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 01:22:26PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:08:51PM +, Kent Robotti wrote:
>
> > Overmount_rootfs shouldn't take place until you know for sure the
> > kernel detects an initramfs.
>
> Actually, it was a d
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:40:45PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:12:31PM +, Kent Robotti wrote:
>
> > Ideally, I don't know why you would want to overmount unless the
> > kernel detects an initramfs.
>
> because the rootfs doesn
On Fri Aug 26 2005 - 05:33:43 EST, Erik Mouw wrote:
> I prefer tar because I have more experience with it, and it works.
>> The kernel people prefer cpio because they have experience with it, it
>> doesn't need too much code, and it works.
I know that experience dosen't come from pa
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 02:28:17PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> How about you do a little research on some things for a bit? The
> initramfs code is done the way it is for a good reason. cpio is used
> over tar for another good reason.
Why don't you do some research on manners?
> You are mos
16 matches
Mail list logo
