From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 15 10:44:00 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 2977216A41B for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:44:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.246]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F5013C4BE for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:43:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao.barros@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c14so87372anc for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:43:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=5Qr5prfSK1grmOKz7qKkMy0nbntUtmymvY4e1Pos1FI=; b=eFZqVUmgLnjhlNsDbL2uItpsYcKHuplBNlEPjbdnC2kZrhBZAwHSa8d2NOxfWelGbtKltY4lJLls25stAm91PkMWp2dt9zhuBVSNVDtLGHvYmvKl8zIO6JSnKB7aIH6BQIZu+KYp9mmGytcLEUe9XcE8+TOMDoiRTlxal32NoL4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=WPXCUm7lRlegsAvwzKk0h8PN4P4nI505IG/PbcqJG3Q+iQMWzy1k3Olew99E5qghVQc76VLEHlTO0qxMqBGqKGAwcAf1PinWTP7U/jSt2L1HUPnC2zt8rSoJHEgQzFHwisIo7z6Afyw2h/7xG/fIM7fFKWavi2g41/wO5FHW+/4= Received: by 10.142.82.17 with SMTP id f17mr1372010wfb.1192445037975; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.90.13 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <70e8236f0710150343k590f5be8r8cdf3fd60df4abd2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:43:57 +0100 From: "Joao Barros" To: "Scott Long" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Wilko Bulte , src-committers@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger , 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 f 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 10:44:00 -0000 On 10/15/07, Scott Long wrote: > Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > 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. > > > > I don't think it is fair to make such a noise, without coming up with > > technical facts. > > > > Note: I don't object to backing out the commit. But as this seems to be > > on the desk of core@, I wait for their decision regarding this (as it is > > self contained and doesn't interfere with other stuff, we don't need to > > hurry). > > > >> In OpenBSD the sensors framework has already turned into a dumping > >> ground, and I have all reason to belive that we will see the same > >> under FreeBSD. > > > > It will be what we make out of this. > > > >> See for instance Marc Balmers presentation from EuroBSDcon2007 about > >> putting radio-timecode receivers under the sensors framework, or > > > > I don't see a need to port this part instead of using the existing > > time-infrastructure in our kernel (and I don't have my fingers in the > > time related code at all like you, so I hope other people think similar). > > > >> listen to the various mumblings about putting RAID-controller status > >> under sensors framework. > > > > What's wrong with this? Currently each RAID driver has to come up with > > his own way of displaying the RAID status. It's like saying that each > > network driver has to implement/display the stuff you can see with > > ifconfig in its own way, instead of using the proper network driver > > interface for this. > > > > For the love of God, please don't use RAID as an example to support your > argument for the sensord framework. Representing RAID state is several > orders of magnitude more involved than representing network state. > There are also landmines in the OpenBSD bits of RAID support that are > best left out of FreeBSD, unless you like alienating vendors and risking > legal action. Leave it alone. Please. I don't care what you do with > lmsensors or cpu power settings or whatever. Leave RAID out of it. > > Thanks, > > Scott Are you saying I shouldn't proceed with the bio port? -- Joao Barros