From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 9 09:39:41 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FCB106566B; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:39:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f210.google.com (mail-fx0-f210.google.com [209.85.220.210]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D86C8FC20; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so3091873fxm.43 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=ts3LpwFecW+y0rvjn/AEPqCI9uChluNTPDPJ2q6z7UE=; b=cEzPbyCFm5pxVtDA4No49MmWi0ymKuKan/eyxiqZ5gIAzmjb2cVoFeSmVCWw8+XBQZ B4eFgajEFC0MLDQMo0pD/j71l4poHHKzGgnUc5032k2n6g+BVJ/TlW7nrU/kQ5nHppAA 74oAED7ycGV9hS+7rsDrLK8NpcrJCA19siEB0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=AU8xp2vCUPUNGxh3ZBTKvzT5gPxMsYOw+4pArHottPcqbE2N6mB8fuWaU+k8qD3ewI 76KzRIpy538gLcKrUeF8e5z64Wz3I+1OEMGgGIDa3CCkUW5BVdoNvEilEl/9vBvmgTrn 2DUD23z1KSP4goxbn9M4bcWa3ER4IBDVMKmjo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.3.4 with SMTP id 4mr7227879fal.30.1252489179130; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200909080936.37603.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200909031340.n83Defkv034013@svn.freebsd.org> <20090904.161634.-217944108.imp@bsdimp.com> <3bbf2fe10909041546y2b5633e1ue063955568df1a06@mail.gmail.com> <200909080936.37603.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:39:39 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1bd700cd766a7181 Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10909090239r519ae737t56ddd7ca36e5f84d@mail.gmail.com> From: Attilio Rao To: John Baldwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NEWBUS states (was Re: svn commit: r196779 - in head/sys: kern sys) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:39:41 -0000 2009/9/8 John Baldwin : > On Friday 04 September 2009 6:46:03 pm Attilio Rao wrote: >> We all agreed the one-state was the better option but it can't be done >> in this way because of the device_is_attached() used in the detach >> virtual functions. Using just one transition state will break >> device_is_attached() in those parts. >> The right fix, as pointed out in other e-mails, is to not use >> device_is_attached() in detach virtual functions. The better fix, in >> my idea would involve: >> - replace the device_is_attached() usage in detach virtual functions, >> with a more functional support >> - use one-state transition >> >> But that is just too much job to push in before then 8.0-REL and if >> that would mean to not commit a patch and make impossible a future >> MFC, I prefer to go with a lesser-perfect-but-still-working-approach. > > Wait, all you need to MFC is the change to the enum. Fixing the various > detach routines does _not_ have to be in 8.0. That could be merged after the > release. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that in order to have a perfect job right now (and have single-state transition usable *right now* by both STABLE_8 and HEAD) that what should happen, which is impractical. I was just explaining to Warner why we didn't go with the single-state in the end. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein