From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 15 07:13:10 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF0616A41A; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:13:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111D413C45A; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:13:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.61.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57EA317104; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:13:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l9F7D7rM044702; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:13:08 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Alexander Leidinger From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:15:07 +0200." <20071015081507.yi9t4ot8asg0wcw4@webmail.leidinger.net> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:13:07 +0000 Message-ID: <44701.1192432387@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk Cc: Wilko Bulte , src-committers@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 files ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:13:10 -0000 In message <20071015081507.yi9t4ot8asg0wcw4@webmail.leidinger.net>, Alexander L eidinger writes: >Quoting Poul-Henning Kamp (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. > >[...] > >Could you please explain how you want to integrate devices with >newbus, which are only accessible via the i2c bus? Feel free to show >us example code for one of those of our drivers which access the i2c >bus, which already existed before this commit. So, lets see how that works: I propose that we write our own C/C++ compiler in perl. You object to that. Then I tell you: Now YOU have to write the compiler. No, I didn't think so either :-) I have several times in the past pointed out why it is a very bad idea to add a unstructured dumping ground to the kernel, and why it is bad to stick code in the kernel that can easier live in userland. Right now, the people who advocate importing the OpenBSD sensor framework need to tell us, in a coherent architecture document: A) Why we need it B) Why so much of it ends in the kernel C) How it integrates into FreeBSD and for the places where it does not (newbus ?) why it doesn't. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.