[BusyBox] Re: Fix for "more" and "ps" on dumb terminals

Pavel Roskin pavel_roskin at geocities.com
Fri Jun 2 13:15:06 UTC 2000


Hello, Erik!

First of all, CVS is basically Ok. There is one minor issue. I cannot see
available modules by running "cvs co -c". You should check out CVSROOT and
add to the file "modules" at least following:

busybox busybox
tinylogin tinylogin

And then check "modules" in. Now check what "cvs co -c" shows.

> > By the way, you may want to put some common code in both versions of
> > ps_main() to a separate function if you happen to hack ps.c
> 
> Yeah.  I've actually been debating removing the devps patch stuff,
> since Linus has given the decree that it will never go into the kernel.
> What do you think?  Should I axe it?

I think you shouldn't remove your patch. The reason are following:

1) There are systems that are really short in non-volatile memory.
Actually, the system that my company produces, has just 4 Mb of onboard
flash. Fortunately we could make 32 Mb ATA Flash cards work, but we had a
backup plan. devps would be the way to go.

2) Linus doesn't like your patch today, but he can change his mind during
the 2.5 series.

3) Busybox is basically intended to be run on systems with kernels built
for those systems, not with prebuilt kernels from e.g. RedHat or
YellowDog. Hence patching the kernel is not a problem.

4) GNU Hurd can only implement mountable filesystems, such as /proc using
translators, i.e. userspace programs. The translator should have another
way to get information about processes from the microkernel. This means
that devps (in some form) is not only easier to implement in GNU Hurd, but
that it's probably required to implement procfs. The same may apply to
other microkernel OS'es.

5) As long as you keep the code duplication minimal it is not such a big
deal to support devps.

Regards,
Pavel Roskin






More information about the busybox mailing list