Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:47:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: devd limitations / automounting removable storage Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030918104650.60612B-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20030918.084025.71552256.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <1063881095.12179.5.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com> > Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> writes: > : Surely the right thing would be to use the same wheel (newbus) for all > : the probing, driver auction, device attachment jobs in the kernel. That > : would seemlessly allow devd to receive device notification events for > : geom's leaf partitions in exactly the same way that it receives all > : other notification events. > > I tend to agree with the CAM/ata controller bit. Both were written > before newbus was well integrated into the tree. It makes no sense that > fdc has an fd newbus child but ata doesn't have an ad child. > > However, having said that, I think we do need additional event types > because we're doing with different name spaces. But those events might > be in devd rather than devctl given that we can get those events in > userland in other ways if my investigations are OK. For ifnet events, we can use routing sockets. I don't know that we have GEOM events as yet. One reason to separately handle GEOM from devfs would be that GEOM "objects" tend to be storage devices or related notions, whereas devfs entries could be any number of things. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030918104650.60612B-100000>