Why '-c DEV' option for switch_root?

[Laurent Bercot]

On 2013-12-16 01:08, Rob Landley wrote:
> The most recent kernel has my initmpfs patches, meaning initramfs
>  can now be a tmpfs instead of ramfs.
> [snip blurb]

  You're listing reasons why initramfs (or initmpfs, if you prefer) is
more logical than it was before, more convenient, etc. All this may be
true, but it does not mean initramfs is actually *useful*.

  I have yet to see a case where initramfs is really needed. Every time
I've seen a system boot on initramfs, the same goals could have been
achieved via booting on the real root filesystem and doing work during
initialization, which implies a lot less code, and is more maintainable,
and safer (if something fails early on).

  I liked initramfs back in the day. It looked flexible and powerful,
which it is, and maybe your initmpfs patches make it even more so. But
I've come to realize it's just a fancy toy, and yes, a trap : people are
blinded by the shinies and diverted from simpler solutions.

-- 
  Laurent