From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:18:14 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] Add support for package-declared devices In-Reply-To: <201109071822.51608.arnout@mind.be> References: <201109061803.05970.arnout@mind.be> <4E673792.5040001@free-electrons.com> <201109071822.51608.arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <4E687A46.1000705@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 07/09/2011 18:22, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 September 2011 11:21:22, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On 06/09/2011 18:03, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >>> On Monday 05 September 2011 18:15:14, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On 05/09/2011 08:52, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >>>>> Yes, exactly. However, I don't really like the name _DEVICE_TABLE >>>>> because, it might be for other purposes as well (setting setuid bit, >>>>> giving specific owner/group or permissions, etc.). Does anyone has an >>>>> idea for a better name? >>>> >>>> I agree, I don't like it neither, but I have no idea on what could be >>>> better... >>>> >>>> Files, maybe, but I find it way too generic. >>> >>> >>> How about _FILE_MOD_TABLE (cfr. chmod)? >> >> Hmm, I'm not quite sure, it is more than just mod. Maybe reuse the >> "skeleton" term already in use in buildroot. > > AFAICS it does three things: > - make device nodes (mknod) > - change permissions (chmod) > - set ownership (chown) > > So skeleton is not really the right term, as it only refers to the mknod > function again. (Although not-yet-existing files and directories are created, > that's not usually the main purpose for files and directories.) In device_table.txt, it also creates the whole basic filesystem hierarchy, with folders (such as /dev) and files (such as /etc/shadow). So you will have to add mkdir and touch to your list. That is why is was going for skeleton, > FILE is also not a good idea since it also applies to directories and device > nodes which are not really files. Heresy! :) More seriously, I was speaking about files with the Unix meaning in mind, but it is true it can cause confusion. > A complete name would be _NOD_MOD_OWN_TABLE, but that's too long and too > cryptic :-) Plus, we might want to add things like setting the utimes etc. in > the future. I agree. > The functionality is in fact comparable to install - copy files and set > attributes (except for the copy part). So we could use _ATTRIBUTE_TABLE. > Unfortunately, 'attributes' could also refer to the e2fs file attributes, > which are a different thing entirely (cfr. man chattr). Or > _FILE_INSTALL_TABLE. This one seems good to me. Peter ? -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com