Hi,

I want to display my complete ignorance and cluelessness (especially with all things related to kernels and devices and booting), by asking a silly question. It's sort of related to this thread but sort of not... well at least I think so.

On Sun, Sep 27, 1998 at 08:59:02PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:

Why doesn't the kernel always use an MFS as root? I've seen a ton of traffic go by on these lists about the magic needed to mount root partitions, and it would seem to me (in my small mind), that using an MFS, like the boot floppies and PicoBSD, which would always be a `known' quantity, would make a lot of these problems go away.

Maybe it would have to be a special kind of MFS, rootfs, which worked a bit differently to a normally MFS. Maybe it should only be able to hold mount points. Maybe it could be a memory image loaded directly by the boot blocks, which contained the kernel (and maybe lkm's?). Maybe the image could be stored on a DOS (e.g.) partition/slice? Maybe the image could then be used as backing store if the MFS needed it?

Don't laugh, I really don't understand most of this. Don't even understand most of the terms. I just don't like having questions running around in my head...

Regards, -Jeremy

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message