[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: initramfs buffer spec -- second draft
    Andreas Dilger wrote:

    > But the proposed cpio format (AFAIK) has ASCII numbers, which is what you
    > were originally complaining about. I see that cpio(1) says that "by
    > default, cpio creates binary format archives... and can read archives
    > created on machines with a different byte-order".
    > Excluding alignment issues (which can also be handled relatively easily),
    > is there a reason why we chose the ASCII format over binary, especially
    > since the binary format _appears_ to be portable (assuming endian
    > conversions at decoding time), despite warnings to the contrary?

    The "binary" format of cpio is *ancient*. There is no binary equivalent
    to the "newc" (SVR4) format.

    > The binary format reports lots of "truncating inode number", but for
    > the purpose of initramfs, that is not an issue as we don't anticipate
    > more than 64k files. I don't know why the /sbin test is so heavily
    > in favour of the newc (ASCII) format, but I repeated it to confirm
    > the numbers.

    There are way too many other problems with the ancient cpio formats. Not
    an option.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.022 / U:0.380 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site