Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Laszlo Papp]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Cathey, Jim  wrote:

> >Embedded != consumer electronics.
>
> Indeed.  Our products use Busybox,
> and with some of them it's not
> impossible to push the per-unit price
> into seven figures (USD).  They
> are flash-based, not disk-based,
> and file space is at a modest premium,
> which is why BB is being used to
> begin with.
>
> Only eight cores per CPU, though.
>

Then, it sounds like irrelevant in this thread since it is about CPU cores.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

RE: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Cathey, Jim]

>Embedded != consumer electronics.

Indeed.  Our products use Busybox,
and with some of them it's not
impossible to push the per-unit price
into seven figures (USD).  They
are flash-based, not disk-based,
and file space is at a modest premium,
which is why BB is being used to
begin with.

Only eight cores per CPU, though.

-- Jim

___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Denys Vlasenko 
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville
>  wrote:
> > This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset.
>
> I applied a bit different implementation. Please try current git.
>


Thank's for taking care of this problem.

Your patch works on our TILEGX72 (72 cores) target, but there is a small
problem: when a hexadecimal mask is specified with a "half-word", then the
parsing is wrong (a '0' is added to the first octet).

Example:
# taskset -p 0x1ff 3471
pid 3471's current affinity mask: ff
pid 3471's new affinity mask: 1f0f

If you want, I can cook a patch to fix this.

Regards,
Matthieu
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Laszlo Papp]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville <
matthieu@6wind.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Isaac Dunham  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> > > > Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has
>> more than
>> > > > 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and
>> even if
>> > > > they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped most
>> > > probably
>> > > > anyhow. To me, this feature does not seem to fit busybox's goal
>> unless
>> > > > Apple, Samsung, etc were not notified about some recent boom in the
>> > > > semiconductor industry.
>> > >
>> > > Embedded != consumer electronics.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded
>> > systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more
>> than
>> > 64 cores where busybox is so much needed.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that Matthieu (the patch author) just said that 6wind
>> (his company)
>> uses or builds the sort of hardware where this is relevant.
>>
>>
> Yes, for example we have a TILEGX72 pci express card which does not have
> an hard drive. And even if there is a lot of RAM, we don't want to use it
> for the filesystem, the RAM is reserved for other function.
>

Right, thank you.

Please put this into the commit message next time. This is very important
information for accepting a change. Theoretical changes without practice
does not make any sense, so if you can show the practice, that makes a huge
difference and more sense.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville
 wrote:
> This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset.

I applied a bit different implementation. Please try current git.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville
 wrote:
> This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville 
> ---
>  miscutils/taskset.c |   39 +++
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/miscutils/taskset.c b/miscutils/taskset.c
> index 4a9e323..2695e20 100644
> --- a/miscutils/taskset.c
> +++ b/miscutils/taskset.c
> @@ -129,16 +129,39 @@ int taskset_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char **argv)
> }
>
> { /* Affinity was specified, translate it into cpu_set_t */
> +   long cpu;
> +   int len = strlen(aff);
> +   const char *ptr = aff + len - 1;
> +   const char *prefix = "";
> +
> +   if (len > 1 && !memcmp(aff, "0x", 2)) {
> +   aff += 2;
> +   prefix = "0x";
> +   }
>
> CPU_ZERO(&mask);
> +   cpu = 0;
> +
> +   for (; ptr >= aff; ptr--) {
> +   int val;
> +
> +   if (*ptr <= '9' && *ptr >= '0')
> +   val = *ptr - '0';
> +   else if (*ptr <= 'f' && *ptr >= 'a')
> +   val = *ptr + (10 - 'a');
> +   else
> +   bb_perror_msg_and_die("invalid mask %s%s", 
> prefix, aff);

This will make mask always hexadecimal.
But "taskset 15 PROG" should use mask , not 10101 - IOW,
15 should be decoded as a decimal number.

Also, uppercase hex numbers are valid too. You accept only lowercase.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Laszlo Papp  wrote:
> I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for
> small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded
> systems, at least not yet, yeah?

I think we should support big systems too.
Larger user base makes the secret goal of world domination closer ;)

We won't be optimizing for them, though, if it causes bloat.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Isaac Dunham  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > > > Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more
> than
> > > > 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and
> even if
> > > > they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped most
> > > probably
> > > > anyhow. To me, this feature does not seem to fit busybox's goal
> unless
> > > > Apple, Samsung, etc were not notified about some recent boom in the
> > > > semiconductor industry.
> > >
> > > Embedded != consumer electronics.
> > >
> >
> > Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded
> > systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more
> than
> > 64 cores where busybox is so much needed.
>
> I'm pretty sure that Matthieu (the patch author) just said that 6wind (his
> company)
> uses or builds the sort of hardware where this is relevant.
>
>
Yes, for example we have a TILEGX72 pci express card which does not have an
hard drive. And even if there is a lot of RAM, we don't want to use it for
the filesystem, the RAM is reserved for other function.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Isaac Dunham]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > > Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more than
> > > 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and even if
> > > they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped most
> > probably
> > > anyhow. To me, this feature does not seem to fit busybox's goal unless
> > > Apple, Samsung, etc were not notified about some recent boom in the
> > > semiconductor industry.
> >
> > Embedded != consumer electronics.
> >
> 
> Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded
> systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more than
> 64 cores where busybox is so much needed.

I'm pretty sure that Matthieu (the patch author) just said that 6wind (his 
company)
uses or builds the sort of hardware where this is relevant.

HTH,
Isaac
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Doug Clapp]

Laszlo Papp wrote:


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen > wrote:


Hi,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is
meant for
> small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded
> systems, at least not yet, yeah?

How you define small? Earlier you said using libc getconf is bloat
(as nproc replacement) for multicore systems, but now you suggest
that for cores > 64 we should't care. Where do you draw the line?

Embedded systems that have lots of RAM and CPUs/cores run-time may be
still limited to having a boot flash of just few megs where the whole
OS image needs to fit.


Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more 
than 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and 
even if they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped 
most probably anyhow. To me, this feature does not seem to fit 
busybox's goal unless Apple, Samsung, etc were not notified about some 
recent boom in the semiconductor industry.


I recently read a review of Nvidia's Jetson TK1 board and it occurs to 
me this may be such a system.  Check 
https://developer.nvidia.com/jetson-tk1 for more information.  While it 
has 2 GB RAM, I can believe there would be embedded systems where that 
would be reserved for the application data.  With the the Kepler GPU's 
"192 CUDA cores" it obviously exceeds 64.  I don't know of any projected 
products based on it, but I'd bet somebody is working on one.


Doug Clapp


___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

BTW, if you care about bloat, please consider stopping sending HTML
mails to the list.

A.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Laszlo Papp]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Aaro Koskinen 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:19:34PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > Right, so you cannot bring up any valid and real use case for this, or do
> > not want despite the explicit clarification request, I take it. I do not
> > think theoretical changes should be added just because it is a good
> > technical challange. Valid use cases oughta be part of the commit
> message,
> > but at worst, comment explanation without even explicit request to be
> > fair.
>
> I think the use case is pretty clear: "support more than 64 cores".
>

No, that is a *theory*.

Use case would be: here is the hardware that is in desperate need of
busybox because although it has 96/128/core, memory and flash are s
limited. I honestly cannot find any hardware like that, and I have been
looking for one now for an hour with google. Not even the supercomputing
mobile platforms are like that and as indicated, even there, having
complete utils is a not issue. It is not a use case to add support for some
random technical challenge. When some submits a change, that person is
expected to provide real case scenarios. Busybox could also add support for
everything that the complete utils can handle in the desktop world, but
that is against its original goals, luckily, since I would not see the
point of NIH there.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:19:34PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> Right, so you cannot bring up any valid and real use case for this, or do
> not want despite the explicit clarification request, I take it. I do not
> think theoretical changes should be added just because it is a good
> technical challange. Valid use cases oughta be part of the commit message,
> but at worst, comment explanation without even explicit request to be
> fair.

I think the use case is pretty clear: "support more than 64 cores".

A.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Laszlo Papp]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded
> > systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more
> than
> > 64 cores where busybox is so much needed.
>
> I'm not trying the limit busybox usage, and I don't think there are
> any "typical" embedded system. And Apple or Samsung are definitely not
> any reference. But if you are happy with their HW, then good for you.
>

Right, so you cannot bring up any valid and real use case for this, or do
not want despite the explicit clarification request, I take it. I do not
think theoretical changes should be added just because it is a good
technical challange. Valid use cases oughta be part of the commit message,
but at worst, comment explanation without even explicit request to be fair.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded
> systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more than
> 64 cores where busybox is so much needed.

I'm not trying the limit busybox usage, and I don't think there are
any "typical" embedded system. And Apple or Samsung are definitely not
any reference. But if you are happy with their HW, then good for you.

A.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Laszlo Papp]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more than
> > 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and even if
> > they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped most
> probably
> > anyhow. To me, this feature does not seem to fit busybox's goal unless
> > Apple, Samsung, etc were not notified about some recent boom in the
> > semiconductor industry.
>
> Embedded != consumer electronics.
>

Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded
systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more than
64 cores where busybox is so much needed.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more than
> 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and even if
> they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped most probably
> anyhow. To me, this feature does not seem to fit busybox's goal unless
> Apple, Samsung, etc were not notified about some recent boom in the
> semiconductor industry.

Embedded != consumer electronics.

A.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Laszlo Papp]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for
> > small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded
> > systems, at least not yet, yeah?
>
> How you define small? Earlier you said using libc getconf is bloat
> (as nproc replacement) for multicore systems, but now you suggest
> that for cores > 64 we should't care. Where do you draw the line?
>
> Embedded systems that have lots of RAM and CPUs/cores run-time may be
> still limited to having a boot flash of just few megs where the whole
> OS image needs to fit.
>

Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more than
64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and even if
they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped most probably
anyhow. To me, this feature does not seem to fit busybox's goal unless
Apple, Samsung, etc were not notified about some recent boom in the
semiconductor industry.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for
> small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded
> systems, at least not yet, yeah?

How you define small? Earlier you said using libc getconf is bloat
(as nproc replacement) for multicore systems, but now you suggest
that for cores > 64 we should't care. Where do you draw the line?

Embedded systems that have lots of RAM and CPUs/cores run-time may be
still limited to having a boot flash of just few megs where the whole
OS image needs to fit.

A.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville]

Yes, busybox is used on small system or small OS. In our case, all cores
are dedicated to network functions and the OS is minimal.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Laszlo Papp  wrote:

> I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for
> small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded
> systems, at least not yet, yeah?
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville <
> matthieu@6wind.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville 
>> ---
>>  miscutils/taskset.c |   39 +++
>>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/miscutils/taskset.c b/miscutils/taskset.c
>> index 4a9e323..2695e20 100644
>> --- a/miscutils/taskset.c
>> +++ b/miscutils/taskset.c
>> @@ -129,16 +129,39 @@ int taskset_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char **argv)
>> }
>>
>> { /* Affinity was specified, translate it into cpu_set_t */
>> -   unsigned i;
>> -   /* Do not allow zero mask: */
>> -   unsigned long long m = xstrtoull_range(aff, 0, 1,
>> ULLONG_MAX);
>> -   enum { CNT_BIT = CPU_SETSIZE < sizeof(m)*8 ? CPU_SETSIZE
>> : sizeof(m)*8 };
>> +   long cpu;
>> +   int len = strlen(aff);
>> +   const char *ptr = aff + len - 1;
>> +   const char *prefix = "";
>> +
>> +   if (len > 1 && !memcmp(aff, "0x", 2)) {
>> +   aff += 2;
>> +   prefix = "0x";
>> +   }
>>
>> CPU_ZERO(&mask);
>> -   for (i = 0; i < CNT_BIT; i++) {
>> -   unsigned long long bit = (1ULL << i);
>> -   if (bit & m)
>> -   CPU_SET(i, &mask);
>> +   cpu = 0;
>> +
>> +   for (; ptr >= aff; ptr--) {
>> +   int val;
>> +
>> +   if (*ptr <= '9' && *ptr >= '0')
>> +   val = *ptr - '0';
>> +   else if (*ptr <= 'f' && *ptr >= 'a')
>> +   val = *ptr + (10 - 'a');
>> +   else
>> +   bb_perror_msg_and_die("invalid mask
>> %s%s", prefix, aff);
>> +
>> +   if (val & 1)
>> +   CPU_SET(cpu, &mask);
>> +   if (val & 2)
>> +   CPU_SET(cpu+1, &mask);
>> +   if (val & 4)
>> +   CPU_SET(cpu+2, &mask);
>> +   if (val & 8)
>> +   CPU_SET(cpu+3, &mask);
>> +
>> +   cpu += 4;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>>
>> ___
>> busybox mailing list
>> busybox@busybox.net
>> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>>
>
>
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

[Laszlo Papp]

I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for
small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded
systems, at least not yet, yeah?


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville <
matthieu@6wind.com> wrote:

> This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville 
> ---
>  miscutils/taskset.c |   39 +++
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/miscutils/taskset.c b/miscutils/taskset.c
> index 4a9e323..2695e20 100644
> --- a/miscutils/taskset.c
> +++ b/miscutils/taskset.c
> @@ -129,16 +129,39 @@ int taskset_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char **argv)
> }
>
> { /* Affinity was specified, translate it into cpu_set_t */
> -   unsigned i;
> -   /* Do not allow zero mask: */
> -   unsigned long long m = xstrtoull_range(aff, 0, 1,
> ULLONG_MAX);
> -   enum { CNT_BIT = CPU_SETSIZE < sizeof(m)*8 ? CPU_SETSIZE :
> sizeof(m)*8 };
> +   long cpu;
> +   int len = strlen(aff);
> +   const char *ptr = aff + len - 1;
> +   const char *prefix = "";
> +
> +   if (len > 1 && !memcmp(aff, "0x", 2)) {
> +   aff += 2;
> +   prefix = "0x";
> +   }
>
> CPU_ZERO(&mask);
> -   for (i = 0; i < CNT_BIT; i++) {
> -   unsigned long long bit = (1ULL << i);
> -   if (bit & m)
> -   CPU_SET(i, &mask);
> +   cpu = 0;
> +
> +   for (; ptr >= aff; ptr--) {
> +   int val;
> +
> +   if (*ptr <= '9' && *ptr >= '0')
> +   val = *ptr - '0';
> +   else if (*ptr <= 'f' && *ptr >= 'a')
> +   val = *ptr + (10 - 'a');
> +   else
> +   bb_perror_msg_and_die("invalid mask %s%s",
> prefix, aff);
> +
> +   if (val & 1)
> +   CPU_SET(cpu, &mask);
> +   if (val & 2)
> +   CPU_SET(cpu+1, &mask);
> +   if (val & 4)
> +   CPU_SET(cpu+2, &mask);
> +   if (val & 8)
> +   CPU_SET(cpu+3, &mask);
> +
> +   cpu += 4;
> }
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
> ___
> busybox mailing list
> busybox@busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox