Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 21:06:03 -0500 From: Hiten Pandya <hiten@angelica.unixdaemons.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bluetooth Message-ID: <20021109210603.A23872@angelica.unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <3DCCFA1F.7B5F4C01@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:05:51AM -0800 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211071328530.5860-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com> <20021109.001225.94555950.imp@bsdimp.com> <3DCCFA1F.7B5F4C01@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:05:51AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote the words in effect of: > "M. Warner Losh" wrote: > > I'd go one step farther. I'd say that it would be insane to have more > > than one bluetooth stack for FreeBSD. I'd go farther and say that it > > would be insane to have more than one bluetooth stack for *BSD. > > Bluetooth is too big and specailized for there to be much benefit in > > competing stacks. > > I'll go further... it's insane to have more than one Bluetooh stack > period. > > Are people actively trying to ignore the example of the success of > TCP/IP, or what? > > > > I mean look how far the multiple ATM stacks got us. It was a dump > > idea to have more than one in the system, and now both aren't very > > supported. People had to beg and plead to get the drivers updated, > > and only one of the two stacks survived (if I read my commit mail > > correctly). > > I think this had more to do with ATM sucking, more than anything > else. I note that NetBEUI isn't supported, even though there was > a full stack written by MITRE for FreeBSD, and that X.25 and OSI > both have very poor support in FreeBSD, ever since they were both > orphaned by the routing code not being updated in those stacks at > the same time it was updated in the TCP/IP stack. > > So ATM isn't really a good negative example for multiple stacks, > as much as it's a negative example for useful protocol design. > > > > And look at OLDCARD and NEWCARD. When both were being worked on, both > > suffered. OLDCARD got all the bug fixes and new features for a while > > when we'd be more ahead today if I'd ported NEWCARD to -stable and > > pc98 instead. Having two implementations there was more of a > > liability than an asset I sometimes think. > > Again, I think the problem with both of them has been a serious > lack of documentation, more than anything else. The Bus Space > code is another good example of code that's not documented well > enough for people to use it usefully, or FreeBSD would already > support more than 2G of memory on Alpha systems. > > The problem there is more one of letting replacement code into > the kernel, without replacement documentation for the new code > that at least matches the documentation for the old code. > I am not sure how right my answer is, but if someone really wanted to know about bus_space(9), than they can just look it up the NetBSD manual page. It is very well documented, and not a whole lot if different. In fact, I had started some work to port the manual page to FreeBSD about 5 weeks ago, and then stopped because of studies. If you are interested in ongoing work: http://www.unixdaemons.com/~hiten/work/diffs/netbsd-bus_space.9 Cheers. -- Hiten hiten@unixdaemons.com, hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org, hiten@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021109210603.A23872>