[klibc] Query regarding initramfs

[H. Peter Anvin]

Milton Miller wrote:
> 
> With the current code there is no reason initramfs pieces have to
> be linked into the kernel.   Instead the pieces can be loaded into
> memory by the bootloader and passed to the kernel as an initrd.  As
> of early January, the pieces can have empty (zeroed) space between
> them.  The linking mentioned above is a historical reference.
 >

Well, you *can* link it into the kernel; in fact, the initramfs can come 
from *both* sources!

This is a good thing; it's not currently used that much, but will soon.

> Using initramfs means that one does not have to rebuild a filesystem
> and replace the old image on the boot media to add a driver or similar.
> I can see this as a feature for installers.
> 
> However, as I mentioned one needs to be aware of the limitations
> of rootfs.  It is a ramfs, not tmpfs that could fall out into swap.
> Each symlink takes a page.  It can't be unmounted to free space,
> instead the files must be removed.  Also, the unpatched kernel
> returns the max size as the current size, which may cause package
> installers to abort.

Note that it's a pretty trivial patch to the kernel to change rootfs to 
a tmpfs instead of a ramfs.  In fact, the main reason that hasn't been 
mainstreamed is because "noone has asked for it."

	-hpa