From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 5:33:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB0137B404 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D847843EBE for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 05:33:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 29455 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 13:33:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 27 Nov 2002 13:33:35 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (laptop.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.4]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gARDXXuH016379; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:33:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20021126234344.A59511@xorpc.icir.org> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:33:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Luigi Rizzo Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, "M. Warner Losh" , Julian Elischer 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 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 <>< 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