From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SqZdy-00080t-Pc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:58:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E681AE05FE; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39D5E05EF for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:57:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so3961359bkw.40 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:57:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=KhsqMP8D2mitn1MeC/qeyIAPVppdvA1R4HFoz2r6h9M=; b=zWbA9QBqNfuRU8u25u7vlU3WhF7hmyORCeW4TCYFozMlqmmSX/AkosqC7Ohf0TCY5e uR++oTFkAY2jSci27RYjtfqyhwGliTazIWJeXBf4Hfhyb38vxT6n30mglXxYi9cjLzu/ RIPiIgZNt6R/DFSX1gI9UrdVwK9XR7tt58bjLc5qKF+uUdBGoGXr71i+wDhNZQVtvCbQ T21DNUgi9JWyXm2KOzlE0KP2rMaNgIs+Jjrb+8zp8GSukP90ryTJc6ncHIEBIpeKFSNb tCNWTFo55Njh9olzqd5bPxaDvXkeLq4x9WVMldOxRqq40pYQm+o6w76lxTOuBTyNaaMH equA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.120.18 with SMTP id fw18mr4118395bkc.64.1342400248876; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.10.12 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:57:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120712200741.GB3723@waltdnes.org> <20120712222931.GA3044@linux1> <20120713200449.GA6292@waltdnes.org> <50008143.3050708@gentoo.org> <20120714001343.GA6879@waltdnes.org> <20120714031327.GA8799@linux1> <20120714210221.30059.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:57:28 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev <-> mdev From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 29df875e-603f-4d62-af94-c0bba1024387 X-Archives-Hash: 11928918f29b5425dd7b7f6d5d43d9e8 On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:48:55 -0400 as excerpted: > >> Giving it a little thought, the simplest tmpfs-based root would be one >> that defines a tarball as a the root. The system would create a tmpfs, >> extract the tarball to it, and then use the existing fstab-sys module to >> mount stuff on top of that. This gives you the option of actually >> putting some content in the tarball, or just storing an empty directory >> structure in it. A tarball would let you set permissions/etc and be a >> bit more generic than writing a custom script. If you wrote a module to >> do this I wouldn't be suprised if upstream let you merge it. You'd just >> need to define some kind of sane syntax for it >> (root=TAR=path...to...tarball - though how a path works with nothing >> mounted you'd have to define). Maybe you define the tarball at >> initramfs creation (as is done with fstab.sys and mdadm.conf). > > Tarball is an interesting idea I hadn't considered. At first blush I > like it. =:^) > > Thinking in that direction does stimulate yet another idea, tho. What > about a squashfs root? AFAIK squashfs is read-only at use time, thus > enforcing actually mounting something else to write anything, eliminating > many of the down sides of sticking with the initial ramfs root, but it > would allow the same flexibility in terms of sticking whatever into it at > create-time, while only taking the memory necessary for what's actually > stuck in it at create-time. I /think/ it's swappable, too, which would > give me some flexibility in terms of letting more stuff be added at > create-time without having to worry about it being locked in memory. And > I think squashfs is reasonably tested territory for this sort of thing, > given its use for live-media, etc. And it's in mainline now, too, which > is nice. =:^) I'll have to do some research and think about that a bit > more... > > Definitely thanks for the tarball idea, as otherwise I'd probably have > not got out of my "box" and thought about squashfs. I'm probably missing > its downsides ATM, but you still broke my thinking out of the box! This is sounding closer and closer to an on-disk liveCD. -- :wq