Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:00:29 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kblob discussion. Message-ID: <20000619140029.D37084@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <20000619111309.E26801@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000619111309.E26801@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 11:13:09AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > A whole bunch of people were a bit upset about kblob but haven't > brought anything up that makes me not want to commit it. > > Now would be a good time to offer suggestions and critism before > I bring it in. I think that this is a bad attitude, it sounds more like "I've written this code, and want to bring it in no matter what other people think". Before you even consider bringing the code in, I think you need to address the points that have been brought up. The objections that I've seen (and agree with) are that the API is not flexible enough to cope with different usage scenarios. Creating a new API is not a small thing, and if we do that, then it would be nice to make sure that it is flexible enough to handle various things that we throw at it. The kblob API as proposed below appears to be too special purpose. IIRC, Ken pointed you to some papers that address this issue. I recall that the IOLite API was previously rejected for inclusion for various reasons. I have also pointed you to an alternate API, which is more flexible, while still providing the same functionality, and can repost that here if need be. I think that any notion of committing this should be held off until we have a chance to come to some kind of consensus on the issue. -- Jonathan 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?20000619140029.D37084>