Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 13:25:21 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: bakul@torrentnet.com (Bakul Shah) Cc: phk@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device driver open semantics... Message-ID: <199702022025.NAA08478@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199702021635.LAA21764@chai.plexuscom.com> from "Bakul Shah" at Feb 2, 97 11:35:43 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Most device drivers depend on a close() being the final close. Any > change in this semantics must provide a *significant* benefit to all > -- not just fix a few esoteric bugs. Adding more entry points would > also further complicate the interface. > > Perhaps the bugs Bruce mentioned (+ things that make you > dissatisfied with the way things work now) can be handled by passing > some more state between the two layers? May be a callback function? > > In any case, cases where the present *observed* behavior does > not cause faulty, unintended or inconsistent operation should remain > _invariant_ under any changes. IMHO, of course! I disagree. The driver should not depend on the system doing reference counting for it. Mark me down as being "for" calling the close once per close. Reference counting is a very simple modification to make, and there are great benefits to things like CDROM writers that can also function as readers, non-bidirectional sound cards, etc., etc.. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702022025.NAA08478>