[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:0.051 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site