From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030203AbVHZTKW (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:10:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030205AbVHZTKW (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:10:22 -0400 Received: from ylpvm29-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.57.60]:22156 "EHLO ylpvm29.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030203AbVHZTKU (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:10:20 -0400 X-ORBL: [67.124.117.85] Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:10:12 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: robotti@godmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Initramfs and TMPFS! Message-ID: <20050826191012.GC12296@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <200508251538.j7PFcn1g000143@ms-smtp-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508251538.j7PFcn1g000143@ms-smtp-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:38:49AM -0400, robotti@godmail.com wrote: > What if you have a root.cpio.gz that requires 200MB to hold, but you > only have 300MB of memory? then it won't work with nay of the schemes you've suggested > 50% of total memory wouldn't hold it, but 90% etc. would (tmpfs_size=90%). no, actually it won't