On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 08:33 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia said:
> You are talking about a possible bug in the current
> implementation. In my opinion this is completely independent
> from whether a redesign/architecture change is required or
> wanted.
ISTM you are assuming the redesign will not fix the bug. If the
different versions are runtime options then it will be easy to
see if the new versions fix the bug or not. Let's make it easy
for me to see if your assumption is correct or not.
It is much easier on my end to tell a user to use a boot
parameter than it is for me to build a new busybox for them and
then have them install a new initrd.
Even if the new designs do not fix the specific bug I mentioned,
since the redesigns are dealing with hardware related issues
(loading hardware specific modules) we really want to test the
new designs on a large variety of hardware. ISTM the only sane
approach is to let the choice be at runtime so there is a
fallback in case there is a bug that only shows up on specific
hardware. This approach seems so obvious to me that I can't
imagine it is controversial.
My access to thousands of machines has allowed me to catch and
report a nasty bug in modprobe last year. I've also detected
another bug related to loading hardware specific modules but
this 2nd bug has been harder to nail down. My point is that
if we make the new designs a runtime option then it makes it
easier and safer for me to test them on thousands of different
machines. There may be others who are in a similar situation
who also have busybox code that runs on many different machines.
Peace, James
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
-- Richard Feynman
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
