Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:32:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dillon@earth.backplane.com (Matt Dillon) Cc: julian@elischer.org (Julian Elischer), phk@critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp), green@FreeBSD.ORG (Brian F. Feldman), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xucred introduction Message-ID: <200102072232.PAA26462@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <200102071923.f17JNlX91394@earth.backplane.com> from "Matt Dillon" at Feb 07, 2001 11:23:47 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> :this brings up whether we should have 'rules' for kernel structures in general.. > > I'd have to say no. It's too easy for this sort of thing to get > completely out of control. Pretty soon you end up with things like "The VAX Calling Standard", which leads to nasty things like clustering, transparent process migration, autonatic load balancing, software fault tolerance, automatic failover, and all those things we'd rather not think matter to anyone unless they are running a server OS... PS: My vote is to put the mutex first, not export it to user space, and then put the version number. I'd keep the version number even if it weren't a user-space/kernel-space interface, since you never know when it will be useful to deal with passing a structure between a new kernel and an old driver/module, or vice versa... PPS: User-to-kernel writes that change contents should hold the mutex in the kernel, in the API. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102072232.PAA26462>