people actually need an initramfs? my kernel has only what it needs, and nothing it doesn't.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <zhala...@loginet.hu> wrote: >>> >>> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot. >> >> >> The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I >> don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So for >> me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't. >> >> > > I see. Well, different views for different people, I guess. > > It's easier for me to bypass mdev (if it's b0rken) than to bypass initramfs. > >>> And yet >>> another daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static >>> virtualized servers. >> >> >> I agree with that. But why do you need mdev for a static system? A few >> mknods would suffice. >> > > It allows triggered action when I (for example) attach a (virtual) hard disk > to my VM. > > Rgds,
