[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: initramfs buffer spec -- second draft
On Jan 15, 2002  21:16 +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On January 15, 2002 09:03 pm, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Encoding the numeric fields in ASCII/hex is a goofy wart on an otherwise
> > > nice design. What is the compelling reason? Bytesex isn't it: we
> > > should just pick one or the other and stick with it as we do in Ext2.
> > >
> > > Why don't we fix cpio to write a consistent bytesex?
> >
> > Because we want to use existing tools.
> It's a mistake not to fix this tool. I'll post the cost in terms of bytes
> wasted shortly, pretty tough to argue with that, right?

Well, I doubt the difference will be more than a few bytes, if you compare
the cpio archive sizes after compression with gzip.

> > I don't think think this application alone is enough to add Yet Another
> > Version of CPIO. However, if there are more compelling reasons to do so
> > for CPIO backup reasons itself I guess we could write it up and add it
> > to GNU cpio as "linux" format...
> Oh, it is, really it is. It's not just any application, and GNU already
> has its own verion of cpio.

But then every person who wants to build a kernel will have to have
the patched version of cpio until such a time it is part of the standard
cpio tool (which may be "never"). I would much rather use the currently
available tools than save 20 bytes off a 900kB kernel image.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger

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 13:18    [W:0.091 / U:4.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site