From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682B0C433E1 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 02:49:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CC9206BE for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 02:49:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="XPQlFxT8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726904AbgGDCtt (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2020 22:49:49 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.136]:41689 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726469AbgGDCtt (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2020 22:49:49 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:2601:646:8600:3281:5dc2:80d2:54f0:602b] ([IPv6:2601:646:8600:3281:5dc2:80d2:54f0:602b]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 0642h1es2638706 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Jul 2020 19:49:43 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 0642h1es2638706 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2020062301; t=1593830983; bh=xdajIi3z5FFfZAyVanzcSQpfogwjK/4I+USQ7ObbpEE=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From:From; b=XPQlFxT8T06YRZ7opcjjm3+cLdvEHMd3X/Y5XZfafJ86BFb/9mWelxuZgGpPptQ8r MFsQo1b0KftT0FQ6S4zL/qWR4O+nELOqUeEeAkezS5qhMof4C+BpxVSpRUFgfZcwmj T5nb4MhSYmURzPinEyLgq6+wt93fQwnrYVx10gDGxLfYcdDDlu3Vtixu0bmRNozbgJ 0T0iNqTSObyaLXV7mWNssuQT+088t5Cs6XHxkRN5rOj7YJtdx371FTWc+gPSk+o/US VkXDpTeE9WK6Ua/l1zeC2GZ3nGCrpQFeXSbGMQ+qRB2NlIPQVxDuOKC8SAlymcqKlI ilo7IK3ldLKEA== Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 19:19:22 -0700 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20200615125323.930983-1-hch@lst.de> <20200615125323.930983-10-hch@lst.de> <514b0176-d235-f640-b278-9a7d49af356f@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] initrd: remove the BLKFLSBUF call in handle_initrd To: antlists , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: Song Liu , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org From: hpa@zytor.com Message-ID: <54AE9966-852F-4F42-A720-8D6053F0EF52@zytor.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On July 3, 2020 5:18:48 PM PDT, antlists wro= te: >On 03/07/2020 04:40, H=2E Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 2020-06-15 05:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> BLKFLSBUF used to be overloaded for the ramdisk driver to free the >whole >>> ramdisk, which was completely different behavior compared to all >other >>> drivers=2E But this magic overload got removed in commit ff26956875c2 >>> ("brd: remove support for BLKFLSBUF"), so this call is entirely >>> pointless now=2E >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig >>=20 >> Does *anyone* use initrd as opposed to initramfs anymore? It would >seem >> like a good candidate for deprecation/removal=2E >>=20 >Reading the gentoo mailing list, it seems there's a fair few people who > >don't use initramfs=2E I get the impression they don't use initrd either, > >though=2E > >I don't know too much about booting without an initramfs - I switched=20 >ages ago - so what is possible and what they're actually doing, I don't > >know=2E > >Cheers, >Wol Not using any init userspace at all is an entirely different issue=2E --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E