Hi Linus,
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:07 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 01:16 Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Generally, initramfs is passed from a boot-loader,
>> but some architectures embed initramfs into vmlinux
>> (perhaps due to poor boot-loader support??)
>
>
> You didn't answer my real question.
>
> Why do we give the user the choice, when it doesn't matter, and the user doesn't care?
I do not want that commit simply reverted.
Please let me clarify what you want to see:
[1] Remove this choice completely ?
The build system will choose the best one.
For example, CONFIG_RD_XZ is enabled,
'.xz' is _always_ preferred choice over '.gz'
[2] Hide this choice unless INITRAMFS_SOURCE!=""
As Geert mentioned, we still could save
a little more data size, but we assume
people would not care about hundreds bytes.
Which one ?
[2] was the previous behavior.
I think you are complaining
because you noticed a new prompt showed up.
> The argument for the commit was "it's simpler".
>
> But that is simply not *true*.
>
> It's simpler only technically. It's more complexity for the only party that matters: the user.
>
> So I'm likely going to just revert that commit as incorrect and misleading. It's not simpler at all. It's more complex.
>
> The configuration code should care about the user interface more than it seems to do. Some complexity in order to make for less pointless questions is food m good.
>
> Linus
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
