From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun  3 14:36:31 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id DAB4F37B401; Tue,  3 Jun 2003 14:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 578CE43F75; Tue,  3 Jun 2003 14:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h53LaBnA026878;
	Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:36:12 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:33:00 EDT."
             <XFMail.20030603173300.jhb@FreeBSD.org> 
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:36:11 +0200
Message-ID: <26877.1054676171@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: dfr@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: VFS: C99 sparse format for struct vfsops 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 21:36:32 -0000

In message <XFMail.20030603173300.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes:
>
>On 02-Jun-2003 Paul Richards wrote:
>> On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 21:04, Paul Richards wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The tradeoff with using an index into an array is that there'd be a
>>> heavy penalty for growing the array if an extra method didn't fit, but
>>> that would be exceptionally rare and with our present usage we'd never
>>> have that happen.
>> 
>> I'm not sure this is actually a problem after all since the Interface
>> doesn't change and therefore we know a-priori how many methods there can
>> be so we can pre-allocate an array.

I thought the point in KOBJ was that it was extensible so you could
KLD load stuff which added more methods ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.