[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130717160602.4b225ac80b1cb6121cbb489c@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:06:02 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] initmpfs v2: use tmpfs instead of ramfs for rootfs
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> wrote:
> Use tmpfs for rootfs when CONFIG_TMPFS=y and there's no root=.
> Specify rootfstype=ramfs to get the old initramfs behavior.
>
> The previous initramfs code provided a fairly crappy root filesystem:
> didn't let you --bind mount directories out of it, reported zero
> size/usage so it didn't show up in "df" and couldn't run things like
> rpm that query available space before proceeding, would fill up all
> available memory and panic the system if you wrote too much to it...
The df problem and the mount --bind thing are ramfs issues, are they
not? Can we fix them? If so, that's a less intrusive change, and we
also get a fixed ramfs.
> Using tmpfs instead provides a much better root filesystem.
>
> Changes from last time: use test_and_set_bit() for "once" logic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists