On Tuesday 25 November 2008 04:48:04 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 08:16, Roy Marples wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 03:04 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2008 10:21, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
run 'mount -a' over and over
On Monday 24 November 2008 20:04:17 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2008 10:21, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
run 'mount -a' over and over you get stacking mounts
Personally, I'd like to be able to mount valid stuff the way I wish.
So BB behaves
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 13:30, Rob Landley wrote:
Other that NFS code - what places you don't like Rob?
An #ifdef for _dietlibc_,
If someone sends me a patch for this, I conclude
they do build it against dietlibc. Why not help them?
special casing rootfs, special casing shared subtree
Lots of #if ENABLE in general that could be if (ENABLE) instead.
In general a static
function should be inlineable and optimizable away with gcc 4.x.
should be != is. gcc is still sometimes rather stupid.
#if FOO is a surefire way to DEFINITELY exclude some code.
if (FOO) (actually some
Jim == Cathey, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Jim If anyone wants my opinion, I greatly dislike using if(FOO) with
Jim the expectation that the compiler will eliminate the code. I
Jim expect if() to be associated only with run-time decisions,
Jim just as #if is with compile-time
The big advantage of if (FOO) instead of #if FOO is that you always
get to compile test all configurations (even if the code it later
eliminated by the compiled).
That's a pretty big deal as the number of configuration settings go
up.
I can see how this would be. I wonder if an appropriate
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 21:16, Cathey, Jim wrote:
The big advantage of if (FOO) instead of #if FOO is that you always
get to compile test all configurations (even if the code it later
eliminated by the compiled).
That's a pretty big deal as the number of configuration settings go
up.
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 11:08:18 Cathey, Jim wrote:
If anyone wants my opinion,
We would have asked for it back in 2005 when this very issue was extensively
discussed on this very list:
http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2005-July/015089.html
I greatly dislike using if(FOO) with
the
We would have asked for it [my opinion] back in 2005
when this very issue was extensively discussed...
My, that's rather rude. Did I kick your puppy or
something? I was not _on_ this very list back in 2005,
I don't see why you think I would have been, nor how
you could think that I _should_
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 08:16, Roy Marples wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 03:04 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2008 10:21, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
run 'mount -a' over and over you get stacking mounts
Personally, I'd like to be
On Monday 24 November 2008 17:12:45 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2008 14:59, Rob Landley wrote:
On Sunday 23 November 2008 09:01:35 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2008 03:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
busybox's implementation of mount differs from the
run 'mount -a' over and over you get stacking mounts
Personally, I'd like to be able to mount valid stuff the way I wish. So BB
behaves right.
--
Vladimir
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
run 'mount -a' over and over you get stacking mounts
Personally, I'd like to be able to mount valid stuff the way I wish.
So BB behaves right.
For a manual mount, I agree.
But I think 'mount -a' should mount everything from /etc/fstab, unless
it is already
Personally, I'd like to be able to mount valid stuff the way I wish.
For a manual mount, I agree.
But I think 'mount -a' should mount everything from /etc/fstab, unless
it is already mounted.
I fear mount -a is used 99% at early bootup when nothing is mounted. But
still we are going to
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:46:10 +0300, Vladimir Dronnikov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I'd like to be able to mount valid stuff the way I wish.
For a manual mount, I agree.
But I think 'mount -a' should mount everything from /etc/fstab, unless
it is already mounted.
I fear mount
...rathole when mount becomes _stateful_ utility. Do we need more
quirks...?
It's not a quirk, it's needed :)
BSD man pages state that -a will ignore entries that already appear to be
mounted.
core. Although the linux man pages don't state this, the behavior of GNU
mount from
util-linux
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:10:30 +0300, Vladimir Dronnikov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...rathole when mount becomes _stateful_ utility. Do we need more
quirks...?
It's not a quirk, it's needed :)
BSD man pages state that -a will ignore entries that already appear to
be
mounted.
core. Although
On Sunday 23 November 2008 09:01:35 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2008 03:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
busybox's implementation of mount differs from the standalone version
Back in the 1.1 timeframe I rewrote it more or less from scratch, something
like 3 times, trying to get it
mount /proc
do foo that requires stuff in /proc
mount -a
So you're suggesting that mount -a is replaced by shell code...
Nope. I meant the above scenario looks a bit artificial to me. And you told
about _a multiple of scripts_ doing that. Anyway, I never use mount -a so
I'm out.
Regards,
--
On Monday 24 November 2008 14:59, Rob Landley wrote:
On Sunday 23 November 2008 09:01:35 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2008 03:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
busybox's implementation of mount differs from the standalone version
Back in the 1.1 timeframe I rewrote it more or
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 03:04 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2008 10:21, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
run 'mount -a' over and over you get stacking mounts
Personally, I'd like to be able to mount valid stuff the way I wish.
So BB behaves
On Friday 07 November 2008 03:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
busybox's implementation of mount differs from the standalone version
in not refusing to mount entries on top of each other. With tmpfs
entries where it's actually possible to do this, it succeeds. That
is, if you have a tmpfs entry
busybox's implementation of mount differs from the standalone version
in not refusing to mount entries on top of each other. With tmpfs
entries where it's actually possible to do this, it succeeds. That
is, if you have a tmpfs entry in /etc/fstab and run 'mount -a' over
and over you get stacking
23 matches
Mail list logo
