| 1 |
people actually need an initramfs? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
my kernel has only what it needs, and nothing it doesn't. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <zhalassy@×××××××.hu> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I |
| 13 |
>> don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So for |
| 14 |
>> me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I see. Well, different views for different people, I guess. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It's easier for me to bypass mdev (if it's b0rken) than to bypass initramfs. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>>> And yet |
| 23 |
>>> another daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static |
| 24 |
>>> virtualized servers. |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> I agree with that. But why do you need mdev for a static system? A few |
| 28 |
>> mknods would suffice. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> It allows triggered action when I (for example) attach a (virtual) hard disk |
| 32 |
> to my VM. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Rgds, |
Archives