Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:11:29 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: queue(3) patch for config(8) Message-ID: <20010718111129.720EF3E2F@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <20010718105412.78F7238FD@overcee.netplex.com.au>; from peter@wemm.org on "Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:54:12 -0700"
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> writes:
> Dima Dorfman wrote:
> > Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> writes:
> > > This one should almost certainly go past Peter Wemm.
> >
> > Okay. Peter (cc'd), the discussion is about a patch (attached below)
> > to config(8) which converts all of its lists to the queue(3) API.
> > This will make future modifications (esp. those which start removing
> > arbitrary nodes from these lists) less error-prone. Please review.
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> Please keep in mind that:
> 1: This code is doomed and will not live to 5.0-RELEASE.
What's included in `this code'? You're planning to do away with
config(8) entirely?
> 2: TAILQ_FOREACH() etc is not portable. If you're going to use this, then
> please provide fallbacks. The strl*() needs to be fixed in the same way
> as it is a major headache to build a newer kernel on an older system.
Okay, I'll get rid of *_FOREACH.
> 3: We dont remove nodes from lists at all right now, at all.
I know. Some people wanted nooption/nodevice directives that will
undo option/device to go along with 'include'. Those will need to
remove nodes.
> The
> TAILQ_REMOVE()'s you've added are artificial as we're destroying the
> entire list. There was no need to remove the notes as we're free()'ing
> it as we go. This change just seems to complicate the code.
> 4: config (in general) doesn't free memory. The few token places that
> do free memory (eg: the ones you're touching) are just a drop in the
> bucket compared to some of the other stuff. There are no reference
> counts etc, things are just strdup()'ed all over the place "in case".
>
> If you still want to do it, then go for your life. But keep in mind that
> it is right up on the top of my personal todo list for nuking this entire
> block of code.
As asked above, which part of the code is going away? I did this in
preparation of adding nooption/nodevice directives as described above.
People on -hackers (mostly jhb) wanted to split the kernels into MD
and MI parts; the include directive I added will allow us to do that,
but people wanted 'nooption' and 'nodevice' so that (in theory) it'd
be possible to have a 'base' kernel config file for, e.g., a group
("cluster"?) of machines, with a small per-machine config file that
would customize the base one (by adding or removing options and/or
devices).
As long as kernel config files and kernel options aren't going away,
it seems like this would be pretty useful.
Thanks,
Dima Dorfman
dima@unixfreak.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010718111129.720EF3E2F>