From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 7 15: 6:36 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 357E937B401; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38DFB43E6E; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:06:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from melange (melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id gA7N6Q1H065431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:06:26 -0800 (PST)?g (envelope-from sam@errno.com)œ X-Authentication-Warning: ebb.errno.com: Host melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82] claimed to be melange Message-ID: <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com> From: "Sam Leffler" To: "Julian Elischer" Cc: , "Long, Scott" , , "Maksim Yevmenkin" , "Murray Stokely" References: Subject: Re: Bluetooth code Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:06:56 -0800 Organization: Errno Consulting 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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 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 Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Sam Leffler wrote: > > A bluetooth implementation that was not > > tied to netgraph would be preferrable as freebsd users would get the > > benefits of additional (non-freebsd users) working with the code. > > > > NetBSD have their own bluetooth code that goes in /sys/dev/bluetooth. > You are free to port that when (if) it's ready, in fact > we are using netgraph/bluetooth specifically to not collide with that. > > <...netgraph PR deleted...> > I don't want to see multiple instances of Bluetooth support in the system. As you noted there's a netbsd implementation already. Having multiple incompatible implementations of the same protocol stack is silly. If this one is better than the netbsd one then great, but I want to see answers to these questions. Using netgraph for prototyping is fine. Using it for a final version means only freebsd users can make use of it. There aren't enough *bsd users around to not _TRY_ to get everyone sharing code. Perhaps you should port netgraph to other bsd's? > > It's unclear to me how this support is used. There are no user-level > > applications that make use of it and I don't recognize existing applications > > that could use it. I suggest that w/o a "real user" adding this stuff to > > the system is premature. > > There is no point in user apps until there is kernel support. > it's a chicken and egg thing and I'd like to break the cycle > by adding this code now. > No, this is not a chicken and egg problem. If the bluetooth support is useful then it must be useful for something. If there's nothing users can do with the support then it'll languish. You've already noted this stuff is loadable as modules so there is no barrier to the code coming in later or being maintained separately. As Maksim noted however there is an OBEX server coming soon. _THIS_ is justification for having the support in the kernel. I like this work. I think it deserves inclusion in the system somewhere. I'm not keen on it being tied to netgraph but undoing that is obviously major work. What I'd most like to understand is how it compares to the netbsd implementation and if it's going to be actively used and maintained. Sam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message