Followup to: <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C42D804@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com>
By author: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Implicit in the use of initrd is that you have to *make a ramdisk image*,
> and then tell your bootloader to load it. If you have a bootloader that can
> load multiple images (i.e. the modules themselves) you can skip the first
> step.
>
initramfs will do this just fine.
> Again, even the new scheme will still involve the creation of an initrd. I'm
> saying, as a user, it would be easier for me to not do this, and just modify
> a .conf file to have the driver loaded early-on.
See above.
> I'm not arguing that the new initrd won't be better than the old initrd
> (because obviously you are right) I'm arguing that no matter how whizzy
> initrd is, it's still an unnecessary step, and it's one that other OSs (e.g.
> FreeBSD) omit in favor of the approach I'm advocating.
Doing things in multiple steps is often appropriate.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:17 EST