Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:02:36 +1000 (EST)
From:      Darren Reed <darrenr@cyber.com.au>
To:        tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 3.0 kernel API ?!
Message-ID:  <199710220202.MAA01643@plum.cyber.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <199710211856.LAA13887@usr04.primenet.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Oct 21, 97 06:56:40 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some mail I received from Terry Lambert, sie wrote
> 
> > > If it's kernel code you are testing, you will need to include if_var.h
> > > for it to run in the kernel; therefore you need to include if_var.h
> > > for it to run in the test jig, which pretends to be the kernel.
> > 
> > Well, you see, that's just it.  It doesn't need anything else, only the
> > "struct ifnet".  I'd argue that a structure can be used and should be
> > available anywhere, it just describes a way to store some values in
> > memory.  I have no problems with keeping variable names and function
> > prototypes away from users (in different .h files or whatever), it
> > even makes sense.  But I don't think the same logic should be extended
> > to structures.  I assume things like struct proc and struct user are
> > still available without defining KERNEL ?
> 
> Say I agree with you.
> 
> How will you deal with struct ifnet when we rename all the member
> variables from their current names to "opaque_variable_01" through
> "opaque_variable_NN"?  Even if you can depend on the structure, you
> can't reasonably expect the kernel internal interface to not change.

This sort of change I think is, to put it bluntly, fucked.  (I'm
probably putting a lot of people who `control' freebsd offside here).
I'd heartily recommend spending time on something worthwhile rather
than going around making life more difficult for people that.

It's a change for the sake of a change with no reasonable reason to
happen.  To recite an old adage: if it's not broken, don't fix it.

Things weren't broken.

> I think your test case may be a bit contrived to justify your wanting
> to access the internal structure.  8-|.

Well, at least if I implement a fake list of interfaces using other code,
I can still look them up, etc.

blah, time to giveup on FreeBSD and use Linux I think...at least Linus
doesn't allow silly changes that achieve nothing and just cause more
work.

Darren



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710220202.MAA01643>