Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:43:57 +0100 From: "Joao Barros" <joao.barros@gmail.com> To: "Scott Long" <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile sensorsd.conf src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/rc.d Makefile sensorsd src/lib/libc/gen sysctl.3 src/sbin/sysctl sysctl.8 sysctl.c src/share/man/man5 rc.conf.5 src/share/man/man9 Makefile sensor_attach.9 src/sys/conf f Message-ID: <70e8236f0710150343k590f5be8r8cdf3fd60df4abd2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/15/07, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> wrote: > Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Quoting Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> (from Sun, 14 Oct 2007 > > 17:54:21 +0000): > > > >> My only beef is with the architecture of the sensors framework, and > >> as a consequence thereof, with the actual code as well. > > > > When I asked you about a proposal how a better architecture looks like, > > you didn't came up with an explanation and you didn't came up with a > > list of things which you think are bad in the sensors framework. You > > also didn't respond to counterarguments from me. > > > > I don't think it is fair to make such a noise, without coming up with > > technical facts. > > > > Note: I don't object to backing out the commit. But as this seems to be > > on the desk of core@, I wait for their decision regarding this (as it is > > self contained and doesn't interfere with other stuff, we don't need to > > hurry). > > > >> In OpenBSD the sensors framework has already turned into a dumping > >> ground, and I have all reason to belive that we will see the same > >> under FreeBSD. > > > > It will be what we make out of this. > > > >> See for instance Marc Balmers presentation from EuroBSDcon2007 about > >> putting radio-timecode receivers under the sensors framework, or > > > > I don't see a need to port this part instead of using the existing > > time-infrastructure in our kernel (and I don't have my fingers in the > > time related code at all like you, so I hope other people think similar). > > > >> listen to the various mumblings about putting RAID-controller status > >> under sensors framework. > > > > What's wrong with this? Currently each RAID driver has to come up with > > his own way of displaying the RAID status. It's like saying that each > > network driver has to implement/display the stuff you can see with > > ifconfig in its own way, instead of using the proper network driver > > interface for this. > > > > For the love of God, please don't use RAID as an example to support your > argument for the sensord framework. Representing RAID state is several > orders of magnitude more involved than representing network state. > There are also landmines in the OpenBSD bits of RAID support that are > best left out of FreeBSD, unless you like alienating vendors and risking > legal action. Leave it alone. Please. I don't care what you do with > lmsensors or cpu power settings or whatever. Leave RAID out of it. > > Thanks, > > Scott Are you saying I shouldn't proceed with the bio port? -- Joao Barros
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?70e8236f0710150343k590f5be8r8cdf3fd60df4abd2>