On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:42:43AM +1100, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 17.11.2011 18:07, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > >> I see two potential issues: boot speed and memory use. Moving stuff > >> around in memory should be pretty much instantaneous, and the memory > >> (a couple of MB) will be swapped out quick enough so it shouldn't make > >> a difference. > >> > >> I'd be happy to write a new patch where this is optional, but I don't > >> think we should optimize for stuff unless we know it is a measurable > >> problem. > > > > Depending on what's in there, it could be big. For example, I once wrote > > a hook that extracted a tarfile that was stored inside initramfs (that > > tarfile was the whole root filesystem IIRC). > > That's something to take into consideration. I think it would be best > if we were able to optimize the cases that need it by adding some > exceptions to the copying, but still keep the bits needed for > shutdown++, rather than disabling it altogether. Having huge > initramfs' being a corner case, any workaround should of course be > unintrusive (if that is not possible then I agree on just allowing > this stuff to be switched off). > > [untested: would bindmounting a directory (like say /lib/modules) to > itself exclude it from "cp -ax"?]
No, it won't. Generally, detection of crossing onto another mount is done by comparing the devno of '.' to the devno of '..'. Bind mounts aren't special in this regard -- they'll just expose the underlying physical mount. > > Other than that, people WILL complain. > > Undoubtedly. They always do. > Always. d
pgpqXCWKLugsB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
