[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023103159-punctuate-amount-f09d@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:56:24 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Milton D. Miller II" <mdmii@...look.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rootfs: Use tmpfs for rootfs even if root= is given
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:44:17AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> rootfs currently does not use tmpfs if the root= boot option is passed
> even though the documentation about rootfs (added in 6e19eded3684) in
> Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.rst states:
>
> If CONFIG_TMPFS is enabled, rootfs will use tmpfs instead of ramfs by
> default. To force ramfs, add "rootfstype=ramfs" to the kernel command
> line.
At this point in time, is there even any difference between ramfs and
tmpfs anymore? Why would you want to choose one over the other here?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists