Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: How far has initramfs got ? | Date | 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/
| |