From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Nov 27 11:50:14 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 AD48437B407; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69B643ECD; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with ESMTP id <2002112719500900200sp2fee>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:50:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA62660; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:46:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:46:09 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: John Baldwin Cc: Luigi Rizzo , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Wed, 27 Nov 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > 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. I'm not hell bent on it.. it just may reduce the amount of module incompatibilities we see over the next couple of releases.. I also was thinking og th eifnet structure.. there are afew projects in the wings that will want to put pointers there.. e.g. the stack virtualisation that PHK raved about.. > > -- > > 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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message