From owner-freebsd-arch Thu May 24 3:17:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C7337B424; Thu, 24 May 2001 03:17:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from [62.49.251.130] (helo=herring.nlsystems.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 152sB2-000EEi-0K; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:17:08 +0000 Received: from herring (herring [10.0.0.2]) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4OAFq758915; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:15:53 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:15:52 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: Peter Wemm Cc: Brian Somers , Mike Smith , Subject: Re: RFC: unit_list routines In-Reply-To: <20010524061235.0413C380C@overcee.netplex.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 23 May 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > Besides, the sys/kern/unit_list.c and sys/unit_list.h files are badly > misnamed. At the very least, it should be sys/kern/subr_units.c or > something along those lines. (next to subr_bus.c and subr_rman.c). > I still dont believe that we need it though. Also, there is absolutely no need to define 'struct unit_list' in the header. It isn't needed if you are using the api - a simple forward declaration would suffice. Having it defined publically encourages perverted users to dig around in the implementation's private structures and can cause unnescessary binary compatibility problems if the implementation changes. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Phone: +44 20 8348 6160 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message