Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6 early userspace init | Date | 13 Nov 2003 13:32:34 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <1068655518.14435.37.camel@camp4.serpentine.com> By author: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@serpentine.com> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 03:50, Michael Schroeder wrote: > > > how about adding something like this to init/do_mounts.c? > > It's not a bad idea, but surely you should be using the init= boot > parameter instead of hard-coding a path. > > In any case, I don't think you should expect a patch to be accepted. > There's not much point in further crufting up do_mounts.c in generic > kernels during 2.6, until do_mounts moves completely out of the kernel. > Some people are happy enough with root=0:0, so there's not obviously a > consensus about which stopgap measure will do for now. >
I think it's useful to maintain bass-ackwards compatibility with root=, especially since if any hack is put it now, it creates new legacy.
Looking for init, or linuxrc, inside the initramfs makes sense. It should *NOT* be tied to the init= option, though... consider when all of this is pulled out of kernel space; you don't want "init=" to break finding your RAID volumes when you're trying to find a different "real" init binary.
Having a kinit= option (or earlyinit= or whatever, kinit seems to be the term we have been using) would be another matter, of course.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! If you send me mail in HTML format I will assume it's spam. "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64 - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |