From owner-freebsd-current Wed May 12 2:26:53 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from sraigw.sra.co.jp (sraigw.sra.co.jp [202.32.10.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA4C15A8A for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 02:26:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from soda@sra.co.jp) Received: from srasvf.sra.co.jp (srasvf [133.137.28.2]) by sraigw.sra.co.jp (8.8.7/3.6Wbeta7-sraigw) with ESMTP id SAA08288; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from srapc342.sra.co.jp (srapc342 [133.137.28.111]) by srasvf.sra.co.jp (8.8.7/3.6Wbeta7-srambox) with ESMTP id SAA04455; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:35 +0900 (JST) Received: (from soda@localhost) by srapc342.sra.co.jp (8.8.8/3.4W-sra) id SAA19601; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:45 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 18:26:45 +0900 (JST) From: Noriyuki Soda Message-Id: <199905120926.SAA19601@srapc342.sra.co.jp> To: dfr@nlsystems.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c Cc: current@freebsd.org, soda@sra.co.jp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > BTW, there are many fundamental design flaws in new-bus, so I don't > > think new-bus is comparable with newconfig, yet, even if priority > > probe is implemented. For example: > > I'm not going to reply to these points as I suspect it will lead to a > pointless flame thread. I would prefer to discuss these issues in person > at Usenix. I agree that this is better way to solve the conflicts between new-bus and newconfig. Although I wondered why FreeBSD's core decide to choose new-bus before Usenix. -- soda@sra.co.jp Software Research Associates, Inc., Japan (Noriyuki Soda) Advanced Technology Group. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message