Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:30:37 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: attilio@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NEWBUS states Message-ID: <20090905.093037.1927920092.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10909050817w4e8da3adxd8e431749b432070@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090904.172310.-1939841993.imp@bsdimp.com> <20090905.023634.831786645.imp@bsdimp.com> <3bbf2fe10909050817w4e8da3adxd8e431749b432070@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <3bbf2fe10909050817w4e8da3adxd8e431749b432070@mail.gmail.com>
Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> writes:
: 2009/9/5 M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>:
: > In message: <20090904.172310.-1939841993.imp@bsdimp.com>
: > "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:
: > : OK. Let me ponder based on that... It might be better for this round
: > : of changes to leverage off the device 'flags' field to indicate that
: > : we're attaching/detaching. This would not break the
: > : device_is_attached() usage, and would solve the interlock problem
: > : nicely. While it isn't as aesthetically pleasing as the new states,
: > : it would allow us to easily MFC it without API/ABI breakage. This
: > : field surely would be covered by the same set of locks as the state
: > : field.
: > :
: > : I know that there's a good aesthetic argument to be made against this,
: > : but on the other hand 'compatibility' hacks can violate one's
: > : aesthetics. We can migrate to a more pleasing state-based model in 9
: > : and reduce the risk to other code from changing its semantics at this
: > : late date.
: >
: > For a version of this hack, see
: > http://people.freebsd.org/~imp/newbus-flags.diff
:
: So you propose to offer the transition on the device flags instead
: than the device states?
: That is an interesting approach mostly because it won't require an ABI
: breakage, but let me think about locking implications with it as I
: want to review some code and came up with a patch/thoughts in some
: hours.
Please do. I wanted this to provoke thought and experimentation.
While not the most beautiful approach, it is one that we can use to
get around the API/ABI issues. Please let me know how it works
out... The assumption in the patch is that locking requirements for
state and flags are identical...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090905.093037.1927920092.imp>