Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:27:01 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: peter@wemm.org Cc: jroberson@chesapeake.net, bmilekic@unixdaemons.com, nate@root.org, bde@zeta.org.au, alfred@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha busdma_machdep.c src/sys/alpha/osf1 imgact_osf1.c osf1_misc.c src/sys/cam cam_periph.c cam_sim.c cam_xpt.c src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_cd.c scsi_ch.c scsi Message-ID: <20030121.222701.99374769.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030122020826.87F7F2A7EA@canning.wemm.org> References: <20030121205616.I46974-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <20030122020826.87F7F2A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030122020826.87F7F2A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> writes:
: Jeff Roberson wrote:
: > > Not when you consider the huge amount of externally maintained kernel
: > > code and the time required to adjust that code to sync up with changes
: > > like this.
: > >
: > > Personally, I think the value that looks like a flag, is mostly treated
: > > like a flag, but you can't test like a flag is just asking for foot
: > > shooting. I think we should depreciate it with verbage for 5.0 and do
: > > something more sane for 6.0. I think 'more sane' is mostly a bike shed
: > > but obviously something other than what we currently have. I'll let
: > > others comment on that.
: > >
: > > Even though I knew it was not a flag I still got it wrong twice in uma,
: > > btw. So it is on my list of things that would be nice to do once we
: > > branch 5.1 off of head.
: > >
: >
: > Ok, I looked at the diff/commit a little closer. What I suggest we do is
: > this:
: >
: > Leave M_WAITOK defined. This way we keep the ABI and API the same for
: > 5.0. In 6.0 go ahead and remove it. New code should not use this 'flag'.
:
: Slight variation. Can we make M_WAITOK and the other not-a-flag flags
: ifdef'ed under KLD_MODULE or something? That way we can reduce some of the
: avoidable pain with 3rd party external modules, and still get to be sure
: that our own house (src/sys/*) is kept clean.
I think that given the other ABI changes in the pipeline that this
won't be a useful thing to do. We can accept the old value for a
while, but I don't see the point in making additional things use the
old value. 3rd party driver writers are already going to dislike us
due to ABI breakage that's planend.
In the patch I'm putting together will accept the old value, and print
warnings N times in a manner similar to other places in the tree
(likely a stack traceback, although I'm not 100% sure about that).
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030121.222701.99374769.imp>