From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 22 00:20:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA07590 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:20:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA07577 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:20:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA04865; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:17:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from UNKNOWN(), claiming to be "current1.whistle.com" via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd004863; Mon Dec 22 00:17:05 1997 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:14:16 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Mike Smith cc: John-Mark Gurney , FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: converting drivers to dynamic memory... In-Reply-To: <199712220451.PAA00692@word.smith.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As to when DEVFS becomes ready, I'm looking at a release in a week or two. I'm having trouble finding things that fail. (you should try the newest file in ftp://hub.freebsd.org/pub/scsi) mainly they are related to things that make stupid assumptions.. e.g. the partition under a filesystem must have a disklabel, or the swap must have a minor number of '1' (i.e be the 'b' partition) I'm running on a system totally running on devfs. BTW Mike, You said you found some failure conditions but I can't find the email can you remind me? I'm tracking down that sort of thing in the evenings. julian Mike Smith wrote: > > Mike Smith scribbled this message on Dec 21: > > > > my point was that this "framework" that you said was debunking my changes > > ISN'T complete and working, even though you said it was... I will be > > needing it in a couple months... > > To be honest, I made no claim as to its functionality, merely its > inevitability. It's hardly reasonable to be making loud accusations of > debunkment when you're talking about a hypothetical scheme yourself. > > > > This is entirely contingent on the acceptance of devfs as "the way to > > > go", and the encompassing of the various prerequisite tasks (such as > > > persistence and fixing buggy devfs support in drivers). > > > > so, until that happens, can I procede with phase one (that Darren Reed > > was so nice to name :) )... almost ALL of that work will be able to > > easily translate once devfs is complete.. > > What was "phase one"? I'm hardly going to stop you doing something > yourself, but you should consider whether the work is worth the effort. > > > > I think that devfs will be a goer for 3.0. I don't know what sort of > > > timetable you're on for your bus restructuring, but I suspect you may > > > be looking at 3.1 for that. > > > > I'm hoping for having the bus/device code completely written and > > functional with in the next two months... of course, after the bus/device > > code is done, it will require massive changes to the device drivers... > > I would recommend working on a minimal functional subset of drivers for > the new model, such that people can test the framework before you spam > it into -current. You should think long and hard about how you can > support old-style drivers in the new environment as you suggested, > as you'll make some *very* unhappy vendors otherwise. > > mike > >