From: KP K. <ka...@us...> - 2011-01-21 23:35:54
|
Am Freitag, 21. Januar 2011, um 00:25:13 schrieb Andrew: > 10.01.2011 20:04, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет: > > Andrew; > > > > can/will you make the changes necessary? I guess you're the one who knows > > best what has changed moving to initramfs (only) and what needs to be > > done to have initramfs with rootfs. > > > > I consider the issue described above as serious and like to get it > > solved for beta2. > > > > Anything else that anyone considers as showstopper for a new beta > > version? > > > > kp > > I've commited new init script into CVS. I use initramfs till actually > init call, and before init call I added new rootfs creation and then > switching into new rootfs with small wrapper (that mounts /proc and /sys > and then transfers control to main init) as init.script. This makes > easier work with variables (I don't need to export all kernel > variables), but makes a headache when rootfs is smaller than it should > be - so for that case I added error processing and booting with > initramfs on failure. > Cons of this solution: higher memory requirements (it needs 2x <fulled > rootfs size> RAM at booting), but IMHO it isn't big trouble because > executables are tiny. And for resource-limited PCs I added option to > disable rootfs moving by setting syst_size to 0. I sucessfully built a new buildenv and was able to boot into an image, will have a closer look tomorrow. > It'll be good if someone re-checks code. > > P.S. About beta2 - IMHO it'll be good to update kernel before beta2 > tagging to latest 2.6.35 minor (currently 2.6.35.10), and possible to > update busybox (or we have something that depends on bb version?) If you ask me, the kernel seems less intrusive and I vote to update. How much work will be to update and test busybox yet? kp |