From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Aug  7 14:47:41 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA02869
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plum.cyber.com.au (plum.cyber.com.au [203.7.155.24])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA02864;
          Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from darrenr@localhost) by plum.cyber.com.au (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA10870; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:47:22 +1000
From: Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au>
Message-Id: <199708072147.HAA10870@plum.cyber.com.au>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm vm_zone.c vm_zone.h
To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:47:21 +1000 (EST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199708071616.LAA00806@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Aug 7, 97 11:16:44 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In some mail I received from John S. Dyson, sie wrote
> 
> > Well, there you have it.  One of the prime differences between a commercial
> > piece of software and "free" software that is so common today: the place of
> > documentation and the recognition of the significance of its role.
> > 
> I also think that documentation is important.  So, since you are interested,
> want to help with the docs and the design of a DDI/DDK?  I think that it
> would be a good idea to have a formal one.  Again, randomly documenting
> kernel interfaces stagnates it, and there will be yells and hollers when
> changes (significant improvements) are made.

Well, given that there is a rough consensus that this is needed (and before
anyone starts writing - I can probably find some time to make a start on
this), what functions are to be included in section 9 ?

For starters, there are bcopy, strcmp, , etc (libkern - section 9l ?).

Also there is copyin and copyout, malloc and free.  Hmmm, do things like
MALLOC() get documented and `approved' as the kernel interface for malloc
rather than malloc itself ?

Darren
(I'm replying with a cc to hackers to move it out of cvs committers to
 open this discussion up somewhat...)