From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 17 13:22: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B044837B423 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:22:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from spike.unixfreak.org (spike [63.198.170.139]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE4F3E29; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:22:02 -0700 (PDT) To: Brian Somers Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to make snp(4) devfs-friendly In-Reply-To: <200104170958.f3H9wOr62584@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>; from brian@Awfulhak.org on "Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:58:24 +0100" Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:22:02 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010417202202.2EE4F3E29@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brian Somers writes: > This looks good. I'd say you should commit the change yourself - > feel free to say it's reviewed by me. I'm not a src/ committer.. :-/ > As an aside, when I did this to if_tun, I chose to do all the > destroy_dev()s at module unload time (I guess the snp device could do > with a MODULE_DECLARE). This allows the administrator to relax the The problem with making snp a module is that it relies on hooks in the tty subsystem which normally aren't there. Take a look at tty.c and search for "DEV_SNP". If we wanted to make it a module, those hooks would have to be compiled into the base kernel. Since they call some snp-specific functions (snpin, snpinc), those would also have to be in the base kernel. Of course, all of that stuff can be made a kernel option, but that kind of defeats the purpose of making it a module. Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message