Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 03:14:47 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /stand/camcontrol Message-ID: <AANLkTikYhZ0NbYs4XVgPcB12svxS=Hmgb70mzLv2SbPV@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86d3swmpjz.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <86bp8h5mn6.fsf@ds4.des.no> <AANLkTimbj2keVzpHC5CHP6buxg=RRu8FsWL4QK0g-K80@mail.gmail.com> <86d3swmpjz.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/9/2 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no>: > 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? =C2=A0Build of release split MFSROOT was 2006-ish and I feel t= hat >> this can be gone. > > This is /stand, not /rescue; /rescue has a full camcontrol. Oh you are right. But MFSROOT have /stand (for sysinstall), not /rescue, I think? Cheers, --=20 Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikYhZ0NbYs4XVgPcB12svxS=Hmgb70mzLv2SbPV>