Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 22:41:28 +0900 (JST) From: Noriyuki Soda <soda@sra.co.jp> To: "Rick Whitesel" <rwhitesel@nbase-xyplex.com> Cc: "Noriyuki Soda" <soda@sra.co.jp>, <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c Message-ID: <199905121341.WAA22134@srapc342.sra.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <008501be9c7c$51a38020$d3e4b38c@xyplex.com> References: <199905120901.SAA04493@srapc288.sra.co.jp> <008501be9c7c$51a38020$d3e4b38c@xyplex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 1999 09:35:36 -0400, "Rick Whitesel" <rwhitesel@nbase-xyplex.com> said: > In general I believe that dynamic configuration of the system is > extremely useful to both the development community and the user > community. The development community has a much easier time if they > can load / unload drivers. As for the users, my rule of thumb is > that a computer should never ask a human the answer to a question > that it can find out for itself. I think this is especially true for > configuration information. In addition, the need for dynamic system > (re)configuration will only increase as features like PCI hot swap > become the standard. Of course, I completely agree with you. The reason I prefer newconfig is it actually can support dynamic configuration better than the new-bus. All features which new-bus has can be implemented on newconfig, too. And, more. (See the description about on-demand dynamic loading in my previous post.) Furthremore, newconfig does static configuration better than the new-bus, and newconfig has a option which removes dynamic configuration entirely from kernel. New-bus apparently doesn't have this option. So, which is flexible ? :-) -- soda@sra.co.jp Software Research Associates, Inc., Japan (Noriyuki Soda) Advanced Technology Group. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905121341.WAA22134>