[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] some thoughts on appstacks and app-tools

On 16/07/14 11:10, Ian Jackson wrote:
Is the expected format documented somewhere?  E.g. ipv4 vs. ipv6,
default router, dhcp, etc?  xl-network-configuration is a little vague
about it.

No.  And as an OS author you are in theory looking at the wrong
document: that document is aimed at the host administrator.  In theory
you should be looking at the guest interface docs, of which the
relevant bit seems to be
but sadly that doesn't mention the "ip" backend field.

That didn't help, then. I'll need some further specs, but I assume those don't exist at least at the moment.

I mean that the domain config file could say
    disk = [ "vdev=xvda, mountpoint=/etc, target=/path/to/blah.ffs" ]
and libxl would put the mountpoint info in xenstore so something
in the rump kernel Xen environment would pick it up.

Sounds good.  Can we pass arbitrary parameters a la fstab?

Not currently but perhaps we should be able to.

I'll wait for further specs and decisions on how to proceed from your side here too.

Busybox is a single application, not a build tool.  I wasn't aware of
crunchgen.  That does sound like it could do the job.

Ok.  They are usually mentioned together, so I thought busybox was the
Linux equivalent of crunchgen, kinda in the lsof(8) vs. fstat(1) sense.

I don't know what crunchgen is other than what you have said here.
busybox is a reimplementation of a bunch of utilities written in such
a way that they can all be built into the same executable and dispatch
off argv[0].

So they don't sound very similar, although they solve some of the same

crunchen is the same, except it builds existing utilities with something like -DSMALL.

Notably, busybox's implementations are very minimal.  One of busybox's
aims is to be small (for installers, initramfs, etc.).  A traditional
GNU userland coreutils would be too big.  So no-one in the Linux world
would think of generating something to do busybox's job by smooshing
together coreutils ls and coreutils cat and so on.

ISTM that crunchgen might be useful, especially if there's a way to
specify whilch subsets of the BSD tools are included.  ls will be
quite fat compared to (say) mkdir and mknod.

Not too fat. NetBSD includes a "rescue" crunch in the default installation, for purposes of when you b0rk your ld.so or whatnot. Looks like it's currently ~6MB in size on amd64 and includes ~150 utils:

We wouldn't need many many many of those, e.g. ksh or init.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.