From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 23 8:17:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B5D37B422 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:17:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4NFPMq00934; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:25:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200105231525.f4NFPMq00934@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Brian Somers Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: unit_list routines In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 09:15:41 BST." <200105230815.f4N8FfC20001@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:25:22 -0700 From: Mike Smith 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 > unit_list just concerns itself with allocating a bunch of int ranges. > > Do you really think it's appropriate to try to re-use the rman stuff > for what I want to do ? Yes. By all means, wrap the rman interface with something that makes it clearer what you're doing, but if you're managing a finite set of resources of some sort, you should avoid reinventing the wheel where possible. (It's not clear yet whether any of the items on your list actually relate to tangible performance penalties, about the only good reason to consider NIH.) -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message