[Top] [All Lists]

Re: head.S and init_task.c vs addinitrd

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: head.S and init_task.c vs addinitrd
From: Guido Guenther <>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:17:43 +0200
In-reply-to: <>; from on Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 04:09:41PM +0200
Mail-followup-to: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>,
References: <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 04:09:41PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Guido Guenther wrote:
> > >  Hmm, isn't that broken?  I believe an initial RAM disk should be added to
> > > an ELF image, before converting it to ECOFF.  Not everyone uses ECOFF and
> > > ELF is the "canonical" executable format for Linux.  Everything else is a
> > > derivative.
> > But we currently don't support relinking the ELF kernel to add a ramdisk,
>  I don't know.  We are going to have to if the BOOTP/NFS-root code gets
> removed, which will supposedly happen quite soon.
> > do we [1]? Elf2ecoff/addinitrd is the only way I know of to achieve this
> > and I still don't understand why the recent init_task.c/head.S changes
> > where necessary which broke this.
>  Maybe because that's an ugly hack (as I can see from your description).
Are you telling me the only reason for the changes in init_task.c/head.S
were made to break the elf2ecoff/addinitrd "hack"? Where exactly was
there a hack in head.S/init_task.c. Please point me to the line of code
since I don't understand enough about the kernel to see it.

> > [1] I know that one can link a ramdisk into the ELF image but this
> > ramdisk hat to be available at kernel compile time which is not an option in
> > many situations(e.g. Debian "boot-floppies").
>  It depends on how a kernel gets built.  If we add "-r" to the current
> final link we'll get "vmlinux.o" that is a complete, self-contained
> kernel, that may be linked against a RAM-disk (or just relinked alone) 
> without a problem.  That's actually a generic solution and certainly
> something like this will likely have to get implemented as soon as a
> RAM-disk gets mandatory for block-device-less ;-) configurations. 
That's 2.5 stuff. We should not break expected behavior in 2.4.
 -- Guido

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>