Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:33:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <XFMail.20021127083338.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27-Nov-2002 Luigi Rizzo wrote: > 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. He wants to add spare fields to proc/thread/kse/kseg. I don't particularly like doing it since IMO it isn't very clean, but that's just my opinion. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ 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?XFMail.20021127083338.jhb>