Re: udev or mdev?

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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zoltán" <[email protected]> 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,