On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:20:08PM +0100, Truls Becken wrote:
> Rich Felker included a really minimalistic init in his recent blog post
> "Broken by design: systemd" [1].
It was posted here to this thread by nsz. sinit was initially inspired
by Rich Felker's init.
> [1] http://ewontfix.com/14/
Rich Felker included a really minimalistic init in his recent blog post
"Broken by design: systemd" [1].
-Truls
[1] http://ewontfix.com/14/
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 08:22:45PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Sylvain BERTRAND dixit:
>
> >Just to let you know, I have a little initramfs project. The
> >init
> >process is hardcoded directly on the linux syscalls.
>
> On Linux, syscall numbers, argument number, order and size,
> etc. differ
Sylvain BERTRAND dixit:
>Just to let you know, I have a little initramfs project. The init
>process is hardcoded directly on the linux syscalls.
On Linux, syscall numbers, argument number, order and size,
etc. differ by architecture.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Ach, mach doch was du willst, du hast do
Hi,
Just to let you know, I have a little initramfs project. The init
process is hardcoded directly on the linux syscalls.
In the near futur, I hope to add the support to mount the root
filesystem by label and by uuid.
cheers,
--
Sylvain
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:11 PM, sin wrote:
> Fixed :)
Nice, thank you.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:53:16PM +0100, Krol, Willem van de wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM, sin wrote:
> > Yes, I realize signalfd() is Linux specific... aw well.
>
> Why did you choose signalfd() over sigwait()? The only advantage of
> signalfd() seems to be poll()-ing or similar acti
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:53:16PM +0100, Krol, Willem van de wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM, sin wrote:
> > Yes, I realize signalfd() is Linux specific... aw well.
>
> Why did you choose signalfd() over sigwait()? The only advantage of
> signalfd() seems to be poll()-ing or similar acti
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM, sin wrote:
> Yes, I realize signalfd() is Linux specific... aw well.
Why did you choose signalfd() over sigwait()? The only advantage of
signalfd() seems to be poll()-ing or similar actions, which are not
used in sinit.
Willem
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 03:51:40PM +, sin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:31:59PM +, sin wrote:
> > > I just pushed a simple implementation of getty[1] to ubase. Would
> > > be nice to see if that works ok with your se
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:31:59PM +, sin wrote:
> > I just pushed a simple implementation of getty[1] to ubase. Would
> > be nice to see if that works ok with your setup (and maybe get rid of
> > fgetty ;-)).
>
> I didn't dare
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:31:59PM +, sin wrote:
> I just pushed a simple implementation of getty[1] to ubase. Would
> be nice to see if that works ok with your setup (and maybe get rid of
> fgetty ;-)).
I didn't dare to ask if there was a suckless getty :) Thanks for that!
I could only test
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 11:58:47PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:36:01PM +, sin wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:56:17PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> > > I tested v0.3 and besides some glitches due to my system everything
> > > worked fine. I'm using fgetty (
* sin [2014-02-07 21:26:11 +]:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:26:54PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > note that strake got that init code is from Rich Felker
> > and there is more to it than that code.. (you may find
> > related discussions on the musl mailing list archive,
> > he also planned t
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 01:36:21PM -0500, Bryan Bennett wrote:
> Well, damnit. Gmail's web interface strikes again...
>
> As I was saying...
>
> I've not had the chance to try this out myself, but I'm curious what
> this provides
> (or doesn't provide, given the collective mindsets on this mailin
Well, damnit. Gmail's web interface strikes again...
As I was saying...
I've not had the chance to try this out myself, but I'm curious what
this provides
(or doesn't provide, given the collective mindsets on this mailinglist, myself
included) that something like minirc[1] does or doesn't do.
In
I've not had the chance to try this out myself, but I'm curious what
this provides
(or doesn't provide, given the collective mindsets on this mailinglist, myself
included) that something like minirc[1] does or doesn't do.
In particular, Minirc is a
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:36:01PM +, sin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:56:17PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> > I tested v0.3 and besides some glitches due to my system everything
> > worked fine. I'm using fgetty (yeah, freeing a couple more kb might
> > not be worth using it, but I tr
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 09:27:36AM +0100, Truls Becken wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wrapping the argument to spawn in Arg union is useless now.
> Probably a leftover from the design with FIFO.
Yeah, indeed. Will remove.
Hi,
Wrapping the argument to spawn in Arg union is useless now.
Probably a leftover from the design with FIFO.
-Truls
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:00:34PM +, sin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:56:17PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> > And since sinit uses Linux specific code anyway you might consider
> > calling reboot(0) to tell the kernel to send SIGINT to pid 1 on
> > ctrl-alt-del.
>
> I implemented ctrl
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:56:17PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> I tested v0.3 and besides some glitches due to my system everything
> worked fine. I'm using fgetty (yeah, freeing a couple more kb might
> not be worth using it, but I tried it some time ago and kept it) and
> it complains about fi
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:26:54PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * sin [2014-02-06 12:32:59 +]:
> > As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> > busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
> > init[2].
>
> note that strake got that init
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:56:17PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:24:03PM +, sin wrote:
> > Well, I completely removed the FIFO code :)
>
> That simplifies things :)
>
> I tested v0.3 and besides some glitches due to my system everything
> worked fine. I'm using fg
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:24:03PM +, sin wrote:
> Well, I completely removed the FIFO code :)
That simplifies things :)
I tested v0.3 and besides some glitches due to my system everything
worked fine. I'm using fgetty (yeah, freeing a couple more kb might
not be worth using it, but I tried
* sin [2014-02-06 12:32:59 +]:
> As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
> init[2].
note that strake got that init code is from Rich Felker
and there is more to it than that code.. (you may
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:42:36PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:03:03PM +, sin wrote:
> > I've fixed the issues you mentioned except the case when rootfs is mounted
> > as ro.
> >
> > How would you tackle that?
>
> I thought about this a bit. If the fifo is presen
On 02/07/2014 02:02 PM, sin wrote:
Yes, I realize signalfd() is Linux specific... aw well.
Then again, you wrote sinit with stali in mind.
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:42:36PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:03:03PM +, sin wrote:
> > I've fixed the issues you mentioned except the case when rootfs is mounted
> > as ro.
> >
> > How would you tackle that?
>
> I thought about this a bit. If the fifo is presen
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:03:03PM +, sin wrote:
> I've fixed the issues you mentioned except the case when rootfs is mounted
> as ro.
>
> How would you tackle that?
I thought about this a bit. If the fifo is present when booting the
ro root fs everything should be fine. You wouldn't be able
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 11:40:22PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:54:44PM +, sin wrote:
> > Hm yes, you are right, the FIFO code never reaps children. We could
> > probably use the double fork trick + killing the parent to force it to
> > be reaped by the original pr
Eckehard Berns dixit:
>I actually use ctrl-alt-del and alt-up from time to time :) But I could
>live without it. Hmm, I actually forgot. Do the BSDs handle ctrl-alt-del
>in any way on x86?
Yes. Not just on x86. It sends SIGUSR1 to pid 1.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
> Hi, does anyone sell openbsd sticke
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:41:09PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hm, isn’t Ctrl-Alt-Backspace+Ctrl-Alt-Del (when not using xdm)
> or Ctrl-Alt-F1+Ctrl-Alt-Del the normal way to shutdown a system?
I actually use ctrl-alt-del and alt-up from time to time :) But I could
live without it. Hmm, I actua
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:54:44PM +, sin wrote:
> Hm yes, you are right, the FIFO code never reaps children. We could
> probably use the double fork trick + killing the parent to force it to
> be reaped by the original process (the parent of the FIFO code).
Double forking would take care of
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:03:38PM +0100, Hadrian Węgrzynowski wrote:
> Dnia 2014-02-06, o godz. 12:32:59
> Hey.
>
> Did you saw qinit[1] from David Galos?
Yes, it does a bit more than what I'd expect from init.
It is also a bit racy, I have a patched version somewhere that sort of
works.
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:36:23PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:32:59PM +, sin wrote:
> > As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> > busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
> > init[2].
> > [...]
> > Let
Eckehard Berns dixit:
>Also, would it be worth it to deal with x86 Linux's ctrl-alt-del? It would
>pull in OS specific code, and maybe people don't care for ctrl-alt-del
>on the console, since everybody lives in X anyway.
Hm, isn’t Ctrl-Alt-Backspace+Ctrl-Alt-Del (when not using xdm)
or Ctrl-Alt-
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:32:59PM +, sin wrote:
> As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
> init[2].
> [...]
> Let me know what you guys think, I am looking forward to use this with sta.li.
Dnia 2014-02-06, o godz. 12:32:59
sin napisał(a):
> Hi all,
>
> As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on
> Strake's init[2].
>
> It is currently controlled via a FIFO. It supports only two commands
> (
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 07:54:17PM +0100, YpN wrote:
> > Let me know what you guys think, I am looking forward to use this with
> > sta.li.
>
> I will probably try it this month. And you should add it on
> the "rocks" page. For now, I don't have any advices, but it
> could be good to "support" da
Good evening,
sin wrote:
> As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
> init[2].
This is a wonderful idea. Few months ago, we talked about a
"suckless" init. I am happy to see something new (and n
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:46:43PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> > As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> > busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
> > init[2].
> >
> > It is currently controlled via a FIFO. It supports only two com
> As part of experimenting with a toy distro I wanted to get rid of
> busybox's init, so I hacked together sinit[1]. sinit is based on Strake's
> init[2].
>
> It is currently controlled via a FIFO. It supports only two commands (reboot
> and poweroff).
Why are those included? sinit does nothing
43 matches
Mail list logo
