Hi Alan,
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> I think you have a major tool problem.
>
> bash-2.04$ size mm/shmem.o
>text data bss dec hex filename
>7422 572 079941f3a mm/shmem.o
> bash-2.04$ size fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
>text data
Hi Alan,
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
I think you have a major tool problem.
bash-2.04$ size mm/shmem.o
text data bss dec hex filename
7422 572 079941f3a mm/shmem.o
bash-2.04$ size fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
text data bss
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
> > get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
> > on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
> > and follow_dotdot. Real root is
> cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o*
> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs
> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 180764 Mai 16 19:24 mm/shmem.o+tmpfs
> cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 141452 Mai 16
> Why do you use ramfs? Most of it is duplicated in tmpfs and ramfs is a
> minimal _example_ fs. There was some agreement that this should stay
> so.
I think ramfs is an incredibly flawed example right now - precisely because
it has no error cases. ramfs with the size limiting is a brilliant fs
> Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
> get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
> on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
> and follow_dotdot. Real root is mounted atop of the "absolute" one.
Surely
On Wed, 16 May 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > In full variant of patch I don't _have_ mount_root(9). It's done by
> > mount(2). Period. Initrd or not. Notice that rootfs stays absolute root
> > forever - it's much more convenient for fs/super.c, since you can get
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> In full variant of patch I don't _have_ mount_root(9). It's done by
> mount(2). Period. Initrd or not. Notice that rootfs stays absolute root
> forever - it's much more convenient for fs/super.c, since you can get rid
> of many kludges that way. So I'm not too happy
On 16 May 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Well, since all I actually use in the full variant of patch is sys_mknod(),
> > sys_chdir() and sys_mkdir()... IMO tmpfs is an
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Well, since all I actually use in the full variant of patch is sys_mknod(),
> sys_chdir() and sys_mkdir()... IMO tmpfs is an overkill here. Maybe we
> really need minimal rootfs
Hi Alexander,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Because what I need is an absolute minimum. Heck, I don't even use
> regular files (in the full variant of patch, that is). They might
> become useful, but I can live with mkdir() and mknod().
So what about adding shmem_mknod and
Hi Linus,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
>>
>> cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o*
>> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs
>> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 180764 Mai 16 19:24
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
> > get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
> > on ramfs and necessary changes to
On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 141452 Mai 16 19:27 fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
_What_?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> Why do you use ramfs? Most of it is duplicated in tmpfs and ramfs is a
> minimal _example_ fs. There was some agreement that this should stay
> so.
Because what I need is an absolute minimum. Heck, I don't even use
regular files (in the full variant
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What the hell are you doing? Compiling with debugging or something?
I'll bet he's using a rootkit 'ls' that shows file sizes in bits.
;-)
regards,
David
--
David L. Parsley
Network Administrator, Roanoke College
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye
Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Looks ok, but it also feels like 2.5.x stuff to me.
> >
> > Also, there's the question of whether to make ramfs just built-in,
> > or make _tmpfs_ built in - ramfs is certainly simpler, but tmpfs
> > does
Hi Linus,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Looks ok, but it also feels like 2.5.x stuff to me.
>
> Also, there's the question of whether to make ramfs just built-in,
> or make _tmpfs_ built in - ramfs is certainly simpler, but tmpfs
> does the same things and you need that one for
On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
>
> cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o*
> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs
> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 180764 Mai 16 19:24 mm/shmem.o+tmpfs
> cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
>
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
> get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
> on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
> and follow_dotdot. Real root is
Hi Al,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> One point that might be better done differently - since we
> need ramfs for boot I've just made fs/Config.in declare CONFIG_RAMFS
> as define_bool CONFIG_RAMFS y. If ramfs grows (e.g. gets resource
> limits patches from -ac) we might be
Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
and follow_dotdot. Real root is mounted atop of the "absolute" one.
More
Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
and follow_dotdot. Real root is mounted atop of the absolute one.
More
Hi Al,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
One point that might be better done differently - since we
need ramfs for boot I've just made fs/Config.in declare CONFIG_RAMFS
as define_bool CONFIG_RAMFS y. If ramfs grows (e.g. gets resource
limits patches from -ac) we might be
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
and follow_dotdot. Real root is
Christoph Rohland wrote:
Hi Linus,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Looks ok, but it also feels like 2.5.x stuff to me.
Also, there's the question of whether to make ramfs just built-in,
or make _tmpfs_ built in - ramfs is certainly simpler, but tmpfs
does the same
Hi Linus,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Looks ok, but it also feels like 2.5.x stuff to me.
Also, there's the question of whether to make ramfs just built-in,
or make _tmpfs_ built in - ramfs is certainly simpler, but tmpfs
does the same things and you need that one for
On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o*
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 180764 Mai 16 19:24 mm/shmem.o+tmpfs
cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
-rw-r--r--
Linus Torvalds wrote:
What the hell are you doing? Compiling with debugging or something?
I'll bet he's using a rootkit 'ls' that shows file sizes in bits.
;-)
regards,
David
--
David L. Parsley
Network Administrator, Roanoke College
If I have seen further it is by standing on ye
On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
Why do you use ramfs? Most of it is duplicated in tmpfs and ramfs is a
minimal _example_ fs. There was some agreement that this should stay
so.
Because what I need is an absolute minimum. Heck, I don't even use
regular files (in the full variant of
On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 141452 Mai 16 19:27 fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
_What_?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
on ramfs and necessary changes to
Hi Linus,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote:
cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o*
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 180764 Mai 16 19:24 mm/shmem.o+tmpfs
Hi Alexander,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
Because what I need is an absolute minimum. Heck, I don't even use
regular files (in the full variant of patch, that is). They might
become useful, but I can live with mkdir() and mknod().
So what about adding shmem_mknod and
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Alexander Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Well, since all I actually use in the full variant of patch is sys_mknod(),
sys_chdir() and sys_mkdir()... IMO tmpfs is an overkill here. Maybe we
really need minimal rootfs in the
On 16 May 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Alexander Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Well, since all I actually use in the full variant of patch is sys_mknod(),
sys_chdir() and sys_mkdir()... IMO tmpfs is an overkill
Alexander Viro wrote:
In full variant of patch I don't _have_ mount_root(9). It's done by
mount(2). Period. Initrd or not. Notice that rootfs stays absolute root
forever - it's much more convenient for fs/super.c, since you can get rid
of many kludges that way. So I'm not too happy about
On Wed, 16 May 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Alexander Viro wrote:
In full variant of patch I don't _have_ mount_root(9). It's done by
mount(2). Period. Initrd or not. Notice that rootfs stays absolute root
forever - it's much more convenient for fs/super.c, since you can get rid
of
Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
and follow_dotdot. Real root is mounted atop of the absolute one.
Surely this is
cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o*
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 180764 Mai 16 19:24 mm/shmem.o+tmpfs
cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l fs/ramfs/ramfs.o
-rw-r--r--1 cr users 141452 Mai 16 19:27
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Linus, patch is the first chunk of rootfs stuff. I've tried to
get it as small as possible - all it does is addition of absolute root
on ramfs and necessary changes to mount_root/change_root/sys_pivot_root
and follow_dotdot. Real root is mounted
41 matches
Mail list logo
