On Tue Aug 13, 2002 at 04:04:59AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> We do have nfsroot support in the kernel. If we are going to move it
> into the userland, we _must_ have the code for that. "Use glibc" is
> laughable - try to link anything statically against that dungpile and
> see what size you'll get.
Using the version of mount from util-linux-2.11n:
Staticly linked vs glibc 2.2.5:
$ ls -l ./mount
-rwxr-xr-x 1 andersen andersen 533912 Aug 13 03:41 ./mount*
Staticly linked vs uClibc 0.9.14:
$ ls -l ./mount
-rwxr-xr-x 1 andersen andersen 115844 Aug 13 03:40 ./mount*
Busybox mount w/NFS enabled, statically linked vs uClibc 0.9.14:
$ ls -l ./busybox
-rwxr-xr-x 1 andersen andersen 62628 Aug 13 03:46 ./busybox*
And uClibc's RPC code accounts for 33k of the 62k...
> Said that, we don't need anywhere near the full RPC support for nfsroot
> and I'm not sure that we want it in libc even if it will be implemented.
> "Use -lrpc" is perfectly OK.
>
> Stuff needed for nfsroot
> a) is purely sequential (full-sync)
> b) we need 2 or 3 RPC calls
> c) we can open-code marshalling for these
> IOW, the most complex part of that is handling of timeout and possibly -
> logics with retransmit. Other than that it's filling an array, doing
> sendmsg(), waiting for reply, and checking several words in received array.
I would love to see an example of how to do an NFS mount w/o
resorting to the C library at all. Plainly, having generic RPC
code in the C library sucks, even if you trim it down. Having
the entire NFS mount process live in application space, and not
in the C library, is clearly a win....
-Erik
-- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- - 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 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 22:00:31 EST