Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:54:23 +1000 (EST) From: Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au> To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) Cc: julian@whistle.com, hackers@Freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.0 kernel API ?! Message-ID: <199710210054.KAA09620@plum.cyber.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199710210011.RAA28373@usr05.primenet.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Oct 21, 97 00:11:04 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some mail I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote > > I agree. But how can we get a picture of the spanning set of new > interfaces needed unless we take away all of the old interfaces, > and log what fails? Sure, we could organically grow things, and > let duplicate functionality (say like /procfs and sysinit) creep > up on us, so that we can't really point at "here is the right way", > but do we really want that? Hmmm, I think that duplicate functionality has some merit. For one, it allows you to migrate from old to new rather than having to choose - providing that it is posible to have both in a sane way. So whilst the old functionality will not be available in the future, you can use the old one whilst you refit to use the new one. > Brass tacks time: > > Why do *you, personally* need the kernel internal structure > defined by struct ifnet? Because I try to use the same code for compiling into the kernel as into the testing code. If I have to fake struct ifnet, I'll only end up building a structure which has the same fields anyway. Even though things like if_output aren't going to call the same device driver output routine, I can use it to write to a file and verify what's getting written out. Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710210054.KAA09620>