From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932198AbVHYPyD (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:54:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932204AbVHYPyD (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:54:03 -0400 Received: from dtp.xs4all.nl ([80.126.206.180]:51814 "HELO abra2.bitwizard.nl") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932198AbVHYPyB (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:54:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:54:00 +0200 From: Erik Mouw To: robotti@godmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Initramfs and TMPFS! Message-ID: <20050825155400.GB20557@harddisk-recovery.com> References: <200508251534.j7PFY11g024729@ms-smtp-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508251534.j7PFY11g024729@ms-smtp-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com> Organization: Harddisk-recovery.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Could you please please pretty please get an RFC compliant mailer that generates "In-Reply-To" and preferable even "References" headers? Right now every mail you write starts a new thread instead of referencing to the previous one. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/25/180/ to see what I mean. On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:34:01AM -0400, robotti@godmail.com wrote: > > >On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:35:22AM -0400, robotti@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >I don't know, because tar is probably more widely used and > >consequently people are more familiar with how to use it. > >>As I said before, the cpio format is cleaner/easier to parse in the > >>kernel. Everyone has cpio probably so using tar isn't necessary. > > Cpio is perhaps as available as tar, but it's not as used as tar. So? Firefox is as available as IE, but it's not as used as IE. Does that make IE better? > Unless tar would be inordinately larger than a cpio implementation > (I can't imagine, but I'm not a coder!) I would prefer it. You have been told a couple of times that a tar implementation in kernel is indeed larger than a cpio implementation. If you're not a coder, just believe the coders. > If initramfs replaces the old initrd method it should have something > as a filesystem that's robust and inspires confidence like ext2. The simplicity of ramfs inspires more than enough confidence. > I know generally an initrd is used to load modules and prepare > the installation of a Linux system, so it doesn't require much > in a filesystem. An initramfs can be used to do the same, but doesn't have the overhead of a block device. IOW: it requires even *less* than an initrd. > But, it can also be used to hold and run a complete Linux system, > so a more robust filesystem (tmpfs) is useful. What makes you think tmpfs is more robust than ramfs? What do you mean with a "robust filesystem"? Erik -- +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands