19.09.2014 15:04, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi
>
> at 19.09.2014 10:35, kp kirchdoerfer wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 18. September 2014, 18:59:40 schrieb Timothy Wegner:
>>> David wrote:
>>>
>>>
> ...
>
>> Most probably it's the ehci-pci module (ehci-pci.ko.gz) which is missing. It
>> is needed with the newer kernel in 5.1.
>> You may add it grom the modules tarball to initmod.lrp.
>>
>> See
>> http://bering-uclibc.zetam.org/wiki/Bering-uClibc_5.x_-_User_Guide_-_Advanced_Topics_-_Modifying_initrd.lrp
>>
>> how to modify initmod.lrp (It's written for initrd, but it's also valid for
>> initmod).
> For what it's worth, I never understood the rationale behind splitting
> initrd, except for a few cycles on the server building it. It makes life
> miserable for anyone using a boot loader which does not support multiple
> initrd files. It probably needs more space for initrd storage and makes
> debugging more difficult. I vote to go back to single initrd files.
>
> cheers
>
> Erich
It's for 1) completely separating userland from kernel - that will allow 
us to maintaindifferent kernel branches in single release and 2) for 
embedded platforms where there is a single userland for arch, and 
multiple kernels (even with different versions - if there is a 
proprietary patch w/o ports to other versions, and even w/o boot-time 
modules for some platforms - if there is a fixed configuration of 
boot-time modules, they may be linked into kernel as static).
Also it helps to easily update userspace w/o kernel or kernel w/o 
userspace (they are almost independent now).
If loader doesn't support multiple initrd, 2 pieces can be easily 
concatenated into one w/o repacking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  Video for Nerds.  Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

Reply via email to