From owner-freebsd-current Wed May 12 7:56: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from xap.xyplex.com (xap.xyplex.com [140.179.130.200]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B38715D56 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 07:55:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rwhitesel@nbase-xyplex.com) Received: from pcrlw (pcrlw.xyplex.com [140.179.228.211]) by xap.xyplex.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA20307; Wed, 12 May 1999 10:53:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003001be9c88$2669b620$d3e4b38c@xyplex.com> From: "Rick Whitesel" To: "Noriyuki Soda" Cc: "Noriyuki Soda" , References: <199905120901.SAA04493@srapc288.sra.co.jp><008501be9c7c$51a38020$d3e4b38c@xyplex.com> <199905121341.WAA22134@srapc342.sra.co.jp> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:00:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi: Since newconfig appears technically superior, what are the issues that are hindering its acceptance? Rick Whitesel ----- Original Message ----- From: Noriyuki Soda To: Rick Whitesel Cc: Noriyuki Soda ; Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 9:41 AM Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c >>>>> On Wed, 12 May 1999 09:35:36 -0400, "Rick Whitesel" said: > In general I believe that dynamic configuration of the system is > extremely useful to both the development community and the user > community. The development community has a much easier time if they > can load / unload drivers. As for the users, my rule of thumb is > that a computer should never ask a human the answer to a question > that it can find out for itself. I think this is especially true for > configuration information. In addition, the need for dynamic system > (re)configuration will only increase as features like PCI hot swap > become the standard. Of course, I completely agree with you. The reason I prefer newconfig is it actually can support dynamic configuration better than the new-bus. All features which new-bus has can be implemented on newconfig, too. And, more. (See the description about on-demand dynamic loading in my previous post.) Furthremore, newconfig does static configuration better than the new-bus, and newconfig has a option which removes dynamic configuration entirely from kernel. New-bus apparently doesn't have this option. So, which is flexible ? :-) -- 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message