Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:02:08 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /stand/camcontrol Message-ID: <86d3swmpjz.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimbj2keVzpHC5CHP6buxg=RRu8FsWL4QK0g-K80@mail.gmail.com> (Xin LI's message of "Wed, 1 Sep 2010 13:07:19 -0700") References: <86bp8h5mn6.fsf@ds4.des.no> <AANLkTimbj2keVzpHC5CHP6buxg=RRu8FsWL4QK0g-K80@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> writes: > My 2 cents: I think we don't really need to care about the size for > rescue binary after the splitfs VFS layer have been introduced to > libstand? Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I feel that > this can be gone. This is /stand, not /rescue; /rescue has a full camcontrol. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86d3swmpjz.fsf>