Re: How far has initramfs got ?

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
28 Apr 2002 13:14:58 -0700

Followup to: <20020428174230.GE18102@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu>
By author: Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> I would like to add that perhaps using tmpfs instead of ramfs would be
> a nice touch. As the initial ramfs would get overmounted instead of
> unmounted, this allows the contents of the initial fs to get swapped
> out instead of either taking up memory indefinitely.
>

Baloney. You can't swap out what is actively in use, and something
that's overmounted is actively used. You're supposed to clean up the
contents before overmounting. I discussed with viro a scheme (using
two ramfs's) which made that close to automatic, but I think he
thought it was needless complexity.

-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>
-
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/