Messages in this thread | | | From | Anup Patel <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v2 6/6] RISC-V: Implement keepinitrd kernel parameter | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2019 03:43:06 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel- > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Hellwig > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:15 AM > To: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>; Palmer Dabbelt > <palmer@sifive.com>; Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>; Albert Ou > <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>; Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>; > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] RISC-V: Implement keepinitrd kernel parameter > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 03:53:21PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > If it is initramfs (i.e. CPIO image) then contents of CPIO archive are > > extracted to create a ramfs instance. > > > > If it is initrd (i.e. some filesystem image) then RAM block device is > > created in-place at initrd location. (Please correct me if I am wrong > > about initrd here). > > No. If it is an initrd image we still copy it into the rootfs first, and then load it > into a ram disk. Take a look at > init/initramfs.c:populate_rootfs() and > init/do_mounts_initrd.c:initrd_load(). > > > So in case of initrd we might not want to free-up the RAM but we can > > certainly free-up in case of initramfs. > > No, in either case we do not need the original initramfs/initrd memory. I > suspect arm has this as a workaround for some weird legacy boot issue, but I > can't see any reason why we would not want to free the memory on riscv.
Sure, the keepinitrd=0 by default so it will always free-up initrd by default. Please look at v3 patchset.
Of course, we need separate patch to update documentation of keepinitrd.
Regards, Anup
| |