From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 8 13:30:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02861 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:30:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02683 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:28:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10617; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:27:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd010577; Thu Jan 8 14:27:52 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA14634; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:27:45 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199801082127.OAA14634@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: make_device_driver.sh To: gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:27:45 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, daniel_sobral@voga.com.br, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19980108113407.02264@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> from "John-Mark Gurney" at Jan 8, 98 11:34:07 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > Is there any chance I can convince you to do seperate open/close calls > > for each instance of an open or a close? > > > > PHK wanted this last year, but was shouted down because of the impact > > it would have. If you are about to cause the same magnitude impact > > in the same area... it seems like a logical time to bring this up again. > > I personally like that idea too, but the problem is that the changes > that I'm making won't effect that part (cdev/bdev structs) of the system.. > this only handles how devices are "attached", but the resources they > provide (cdev/bdev/tty) are something different... I was thinking more in the sense that the change is going to dictate that every device driver change to rev it to work with the new code. If there is going to be an acceptable reason to rev all of the device code, then the not-quite acceptable reasons should shoe-horn in... the old "in for a penny, in for a pound" theory. At least contact PHK about it... 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.