[uClinux-dev] in.h and Ethernet
tom at cyberiansoftware.com
Wed Nov 21 21:32:11 EST 2001
Bruce Paterson wrote:
> "Kendrick G. Hamilton" wrote:
> > Bruce,
> > we are using busybox for ifconfig under linux 2.0.38
> Thanks for that. Yes that would appear to compile fine. I had a bit of a
> mismash of stuff between
> busybox and others and I have rationalised my app list a bit (it's only
> when you get
> to the busybox part of the new makefile system you realise you should
> have said No to a lot
> of the earlier questions). Actually its easier editing the config file
> by hand.
Yes, that has happened to me as well... I wonder if there wounldn't be
smarter to mark an star (*) or a bang (!) after the apps that have
busybox equivilants. It is a bit clumsy constantly moving between lists
to see which is what.. Maybe, "if I get some time"(TM).
> You mentioned in another list email about some small mods needed to the
> ethernet driver to get it
> working with 2.4.x (as distinct from 2.0.38). What were they ?
> I have the mleslie 2.0.38 version working fine, but I'm hoping the 68k
> memory leak problems with
> 2.4.x may be found soon (who knows I might even find one).
No, that was very early in the 2.4.0 cycle, this should not be a problem
now for the CS8900 driver. We should have everything shaken out. One
problem is with the nfs on the 68EZ328 processor, it seems that nfs
times out while sending long blocks (or something), the solution was to
use the options rsize & wsize:
mount -t nfs -o rsize=4096,wsize=4096 192.168.1.3:/home/opt/ez328lcd/pub
> I have used the ash shell under busybox as seeming to be a good option.
> I found a good shell
> comparison in the archives. Any drawbacks ?
Perhaps someone else on the list has some ideas, some people have
mentioned one shell has better scripting abilities over another, but I
don't recall which was what..
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Tom Walsh wrote:
> > > agetty* chroot@ expand* inetd* mkdir@ rm@ umount@
> > > basename@ cp@ false@ init* mount@ route@ vi*
> > > busybox* cut@ free@ kill@ mv@ sh* yes@
> > > cat@ dd@ gdbserver* killall@ ping@ tail@
> > > chgrp@ df@ getopt@ ln@ portmap* telnetd*
> > > chmod@ discard* hostname@ login* ps@ touch@
> > > chown@ echo@ ifconfig@ ls@ pwd@ true@
> Thanks for the list Tom. It was actually a very useful reference.
> I take it "init" in busybox is not uClinux suitable ?
Hmm, in my "wandering" from busybox to the other config page, I must
have overlooked that one. IIRC, I may have had some problems using the
init from the busybox.
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
This message resent by the uclinux-dev at uclinux.org list server http://www.uClinux.org/
More information about the uClinux-dev