From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Apr  8 00:24:37 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA03137
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 00:24:37 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA03126
          ; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 00:24:36 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: ache@astral.msk.su, freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com,
        rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Subject: Re: Strange kernel printf... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 95 21:05:16 +1000."
             <199504061105.VAA18008@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 1995 00:24:32 -0700
Message-ID: <3115.797325872@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Although repeating the device lines is a hack, its syntax is simpler and
> exactly matches the data structures that should be built, at least in
> ioconf.c (you wouldn't want variable length arrays or linked lists).

Hmmmmm.  Mumble.  OK.

> I don't like this.  Conflicts need to be resolved at runtime.  The
> static conflict checking code in isa.c should go away and be replaced
> by calls such as
> 
> 	register_iobase(iobase, iosize, id, flags);
> 
> There should be flags for exclusive access and for preventing exclusive
> access by other drivers.

OK, that sounds more reasonable - I was just looking for a relatively
quick fix with my other proposal.. :)  So, my original question remains:
Is this something we're going to actually do, or are we prepared to live
with config in all of its fetid glory for the forseeable future?

					Jordan