On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:40:37PM -0800, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On March 7, 2019 3:12:07 PM PST, Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Enrico, > > > >On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 11:11:22PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT > >consult wrote: > >> On 07.03.19 21:55, Greg KH wrote: > >> > >> > Ick, no, no more squashfs please, let's just kill that mess once > >and for > >> > all :) > >> > >> okay, then: s/squashfs/whatever_fs_image_or_archive_you_like/; > >> > >> > Again, putting this in a simple compressed tar image allows anyone > >to do > >> > whatever they need to with this. If they want a full filesystem, > >> > uncompress it and use it there. If they just want it in-memory > >where > >> > they can uncompress it and then discard it, that works too. > >> > >> And let me stress the point: doesn't need any kernel changes at all, > >> when it's just a file in the same place where the .ko's live. > > > >Yes, but you're missing the point that some people would also opt to > >build it > >into the kernel during their development/debugging (Config=y). For such > >folks, they don't want to update the FS with anything during debug runs > >either. Your "whole same place where the .ko lives" doesn't address > >Daniel's > >usecase. You may say "initrd", but this is a much cleaner solution to > >that > >IMO. There is no initrd needed and the path to the header files will be > >at a > >standard location that is already pre-decided by the kernel. > > > >As Greg said, you are welcome to keep it disabled for yourself if you > >don't > >want it. This doesn't affect anyone else who doesn't use it. > > You do know that initrd can be built into the kernel, right? Yes of course, Hans. I meant the proposed solution is cleaner than the initrd (built-in or otherwise). The proc file location is fixed and all tools can just refer to it than worrying about where in the initrd are the headers located. thanks! - Joel
