From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 17 11:59:31 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE8C16A419; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:59:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F9A13C4D9; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:59:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p54A543FB.dip.t-dialin.net [84.165.67.251]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BC72E09D; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:59:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from deskjail (deskjail.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.109]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB6C676D8; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:59:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1195300753; bh=nn1tEpXfwW/ZHGdWWZu4L6tqIgmX++yfz KuEgxEcGNU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=JKbnEVMDYcec/O0najFmsb0He/HTrDYqOJ9MC VZsMiCAf28m/8/PYQjXiSeENwdYSmDXpvALOjkVi05E36THZ9IR4WAH26TAKgQvQtC8 AZyCX7OD/VJ6553se/H2C1fWJlmBautgp0bDeWmSvgCcmTuCYcb+HRGsMMgxqoYmhif tdixgzlX3ACwYhrgFb9tELWtR32T3Ov2mjA0ARgm5REKNnR5shkSt59dj+wtSEH+jDE +INLQrB9i18R6188/ZNOI3UaXvNb4MJwHtFms/r/Q4JOJHra+bP474YUcbEJV8uF8CF 14yJS6UForY29If2y6Nnoxd9cPDF/kz7em7jQ== Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:59:11 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" Message-ID: <20071117125911.472e9390@deskjail> In-Reply-To: <30393.1195244231@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20071116205918.0e9d5819@deskjail> <30393.1195244231@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.1 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-14.9, required 8, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org, cnst@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sensors framework continued (architecture) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:59:31 -0000 Quoting "Poul-Henning Kamp" (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:17:11 +0000): > In message <20071116205918.0e9d5819@deskjail>, Alexander Leidinger writes: > Neither am I denying anybody any voice or chance to argue, but after > a certain amount of, IMO pretty pointless, argument, I may tire of > them. You proposed something in the kernel, I pointed out how it can be done in the userland (which fits to your requirement of doing as much as possible in the userland instead of the kernel), and you haven't pointed out where my arguments are wrong. And I asked you to prove them wrong. Several times. But you just cut those parts out on your replies without answering any related questions I wrote. I agree that the discussion _between both of us_ is pretty pointless and that we have to find other discussion participants which interact better regarding this. Again: I try to find people which are either able to explain to me what you refuse to tell me (and then I'm quiet and you can proceed with your architectural proposal), or which agree that your proposal is more complex in the kernel without a significant benefit. > If you go with the above architecture, you will have answered most, > if not all critism that has been leveraged against the half-baked > code imported from OpenBSD, and we can move right ahead to start > to get things done. Your comments reads as you have looked at the architecture of the OpenBSD code. Is this the case, or do you still refuse to look at the OpenBSD code like you told us several times before? And in the architecture thread I don't talk about the OpenBSD code. I talk about using sysctl's to get the sensors data out of the kernel, and for example Robert Watson also likes the sysctl approach better than a fd based approach (Robert, if you changed your mind, it would be nice if you could explain me what changed your mind, as I haven't seen an argument from Poul which made it obvious for me that his more complex approach is better than the less complex sysctl approach). Jhb didn't see anything obviously wrong with the sysctl approach to export the data to the userland in his initial mail here on arch@ and he didn't participated in the discussion to explain me where I'm wrong. This means either he has no time to explain me in other words why your approach is better, doesn't care how the data is exported, or doesn't want to get into the line of fire. Those which proposed a fd approach in the beginning also didn't participated in our ping-pong mails to provide answers to the questions I asked. So _nobody_ explains what is wrong with my arguments against the fd approach, even when I ask to point out things I may have overlooked or get wrong. Yes, the OpenBSD code is an implementation which complies with the architectural proposal I talk about here, and if enough people are more interested in the sysctl approach than the fd approach, it would be logical to review the implementation and to decide if we adopt it (which would make our approach compatible with the one of other BSDs), or if we want to do a different implementation of such an architecture. Bye, Alexander. -- Somewhere in Tenafly, New Jersey, a chiropractor is viewing "Leave it to Beaver"! http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137