30 Nov
2016
30 Nov
'16
5:31 a.m.
Hi,
I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS
before doing it.
I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and
the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough.
Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default.
Attached is a patch.
Any comments?
best regards
Waldemar
30 Nov
30 Nov
5:43 a.m.
+CC Thomas for buildroot aspect
On 11/29/2016 09:31 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
Hi,
I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS
before doing it.
I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and
the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough.
Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default.
Attached is a patch.
Any comments?
best regards
Waldemar
I welcome this change - is there going to be impact on downstream projects like
busybox. What if it some disables CONFIG_LFS inside busybox ?
-Vineet
5:02 p.m.
Hello,
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:43:20 -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 11/29/2016 09:31 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
In Buildroot, we have dropped the ability to disable LFS since March
2015. It was really too annoying to maintain the !LFS case, for no real
benefit.
So I'm completely fine with uClibc-ng dropping !LFS support upstream,
since Buildroot no longer cares about this possibility.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Hi,
I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS
before doing it.
I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and
the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough.
Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default.
Attached is a patch.
Any comments?
best regards
Waldemar
I welcome this change - is there going to be impact on downstream projects like
busybox. What if it some disables CONFIG_LFS inside busybox ?
1 Dec
1 Dec
6:16 p.m.
Hi Vineet,
Vineet Gupta wrote,
+CC Thomas for buildroot aspect
On 11/29/2016 09:31 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
At least it does compile fine and I can bootup a system in Qemu.
I think it will just not work with files bigger than 2GB.
Busybox use LFS mostly for Android systems, if I interpret the code
in libbb.h correctly.
best regards
Waldemar
Hi,
I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS
before doing it.
I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and
the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough.
Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default.
Attached is a patch.
Any comments?
best regards
Waldemar
I welcome this change - is there going to be impact on downstream projects like
busybox. What if it some disables CONFIG_LFS inside busybox ? 
30 Nov
30 Nov
7:55 a.m.
>>>> "Waldemar" == Waldemar
Brodkorb <wbx(a)uclibc-ng.org> writes:
Hi,
I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS
before doing it.
I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more
complex and
the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough.
Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is
enabled by default.
I agree. The size saving is really quite small. We did the same thing in
Buildroot last year.
--
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
9:26 a.m.
Hi Waldemar,
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 06:31 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
Hi,
I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS
before doing it.
I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and
the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough.
Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default.
Attached is a patch.
Any comments?
Looks good to me, thought maybe Vineet has another opinion on that.
-Alexey
9:27 a.m.
Opps, didn't notice Vineet has already answered :)
-Alexey
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 12:25 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Waldemar,
>
> On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 06:31 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am preparing a release and would like to remove UCLIBC_HAS_LFS
> > before doing it.
> >
> > I believe UCLIBC_HAS_LFS does make the code more complex and
> > the benefit to disable it to save some bytes is not high enough.
> >
> > Most users have UCLIBC_HAS_LFS enabled and it is enabled by default.
> >
> > Attached is a patch.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> Looks good to me, thought maybe Vineet has another opinion on that.
>
> -Alexey
2711
days inactive
2712
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Alexey Brodkin -
Peter Korsgaard -
Thomas Petazzoni -
Vineet Gupta -
Waldemar Brodkorb