Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:43:44 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211262328210.57127-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:29:04PM -0800 References: <20021127.002657.21921523.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211262328210.57127-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:29:04PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: ... > > That's my view as well. However, while we don't want to unduely > > constrain the developers, I think that the project wants to say "don't > > change the ABIs needlessly." Don't resort values just to resort them, > > don't rearrange structure members just because you can, etc. If you > > need to do it for a compelling reason, then that's OK. > > which is why I think we should reserve some fields now... I don't see much need for it. We have a nice infrastructure (m_tags) to carry info together with mbufs. ifnet's can be easily extended in much the same way used by the bridging code (by using the if_index to point into external arrays containing specific extensions); processes/threads/kseg have the extra pointer/room for custom schedulers... I think the usual suspects are all covered. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021126234344.A59511>