Re: [9fans] Trap in 5c compiling rc?
Now, how do I tell it to use the USB stick as a root filesystem? I'm guessing I'll want to have two partitions, one to hold the image and another as a native P4 fs of some sort (if only to get case-sensitive filenames). what do you mean by image here? - erik
Re: [9fans] the futility of QTMOUNT
QTMOUNT allows exportfs to detect an attempt to open a /srv file that has been opened and mounted somewhere on the system running exportfs (i'll refer to that as the `called system' and the client of exportfs as the `calling system'). exportfs opens the /srv file, mounts that file descriptor itself, and then serves 9p itself to access the resulting name space, when the caller mounts it (on the calling system), just as if the caller had been able to open the /srv file directly to mount it (on the calling system). that's needed because once a file is serving 9p, it can't be read or written directly (see the CMSG flag on chans). it isn't to do with exporting name spaces that contain remote elements.
Re: [9fans] the futility of QTMOUNT
exportfs never detects this bit being set. i would expect the type to be 90, not 80 in this example ... ; mkdir q; mount /srv/boot q; ls -qd q (0001 48 80) q i wouldn't! it's not set on the *mounted* file system in the scope of exportfs but on the file (/srv/boot), once opened, that provides the 9p stream that the *client* of exportfs is opening and wants to mount. it's typically $wsys in a cpu window, such as /mnt/term/srv/rio.forsyth.5 you can only see the bit on the qid you get from fstat, which is what exportfs does.
Re: [9fans] Trap in 5c compiling rc?
/arm/9plug On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:06 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@labs.coraid.comwrote: Now, how do I tell it to use the USB stick as a root filesystem? I'm guessing I'll want to have two partitions, one to hold the image and another as a native P4 fs of some sort (if only to get case-sensitive filenames). what do you mean by image here? - erik -- I'm migrating my email. plalo...@telus.net will soon be disconnected. Please use paul.a.lalo...@gmail.com from now on.
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
Seems a little small for a terminal, 4.3 at 480x272 resolution. Maybe I'm crazy.
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Jacob Todd jaketodd...@gmail.com wrote: Seems a little small for a terminal, 4.3 at 480x272 resolution. Maybe I'm crazy. That's better than what you got on the iPaq, and I found that to be reasonably usable. John
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, hiro 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: There have been cheaper terminals for ages. But small may look nice in some cases... If you can point me at such a cheap graphical terminal that is still being made, I just might buy one tonight :) Grab a pentium from the loading dock doesn't count! John
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Wed Dec 8 19:00:57 EST 2010, slawmas...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, hiro 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: There have been cheaper terminals for ages. But small may look nice in some cases... If you can point me at such a cheap graphical terminal that is still being made, I just might buy one tonight :) Grab a pentium from the loading dock doesn't count! it shouldn't be difficult to beat the gumstix on a pure cost basis. by the time you put together a complete computer with a power supply, ethernet and display, they're at least $300 without a case. if you want to go for a cheap atom, i think you can beat that price. - erik
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
if you want to go for a cheap atom, i think you can beat that price. Yes, but two weeks later you can't get the same device anymore, even though the successor, incompatible in fifteen different ways, is 2 USD cheaper. And all of it is buggy in some fashion or other. And VGA is its own reward. Ron has a point. ++L
