From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 18 23:19:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA29600 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 23:19:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29593 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 23:19:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michaelh@cet.co.jp) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.8/CET-v2.2) with SMTP id HAA05505; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 07:18:42 GMT Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 16:18:42 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: John-Mark Gurney cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: converting drivers to dynamic memory... In-Reply-To: <19971218145005.37073@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Forget the btree model; it's not going to fly in the face of a direct > > reference approach. > > I will once devfs and the driver interface supports it... but devfs and > the interface doesn't even support passing a token yet (well, it does if > you call minor number a token)... I just proposed a simple stop gap > meassure that would get the ball rolling.. > > when did I ever say that we should in the long run choose using a > btree over the "correct" way to do it?? I only said it would require Hashing for example is very good in the kernel, even in cases where you think btrees would be better. The reasoning is along the lines of what Koshy was talking about. If you can abstract things well enough so that you can make a change later on very easily, by all means carry on. Someone will find a use for your Btrees elsewhere most likely. Mike Hancock