Re: [Acpi] Re: ACPI fundamental locking problems

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On Saturday 07 July 2001 15:50, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Eugene Crosser wrote:
> > In article
> > <Pine.GSO.4.21.0107070727030.24836-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>,
> >
> >         Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:
> > >> Doesn't the approach "treat a chunk of data built into bzImage
> > >> as populated ramfs" look cleaner?  No need to fiddle with tar
> > >> format, no copying data from place to place.
> > >
> > > What the hell _is_ "populated ramfs"? The thing doesn't live in
> > > array of blocks. Its directory structure consists of a bunch of
> > > dentries.
> >
> > I am stupid.  But the point still stays: having an image of
> > pre-populated filesystem (some other than ramfs) that you only need
> > to load into RAM seems more sutable than parsing tar format.  Maybe
> > (probably) I am missing something.
>
> Yeah -- we build all this stuff dynamically.  struct file, struct
> inode, etc.  You could store them on disk as they would be
> represented in memory, but this would be incredibly inefficient
> because of all the runtime structures unnecessary on disk, and
> because of all the fixups and checks you would have to perform on the
> data in the images after they magically appear in memory.

Not to mention internal fragmentation.

> Reading a tarball is the distillation of what you describe into
> efficient form :)

/me downloads tar file definition

Um, gnu tar or posix tar? or some new, improved tar?

--
Daniel