Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:
> On 19 Dec 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > I have alarm bells ringing in my gut saying there are pieces of your
> > proposal that are on the edge of being overly complex... But without
> > source I can't really say. Arbitrary NULL padding between images is
> > cool but why?
>
> Alignment that might be wanted by loaders. Take that with hpa - for
> all I care it's a non-issue. while(!*p) p++; added before p = handle_part(p);
> in the main loop...
Right there are definitely cases where it makes sense, and it isn't too bad.
My basic design filter checks to see if there if there is one feature per
requirement. At one feature per requirement it is a uninspired design. At less
than one feature per requirement it approaches an elegant design. At greater
than one feature per requirement it approaches a crap design.
The whole moving excess kernel code into user space, and use cpio
instead of a raw disk image part is elegant. I just don't want the
idea to loose it in the small details.
And you have mentioned enough small features my reaction is to want to review
the code and think it through. So I'll have to look it over very closely next
time you post a patch.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:19 EST