Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:58:57 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>, Shteryana Shopova <syrinx@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Porting OpenBSD's sysctl hw.sensors framework to FreeBSD Message-ID: <53931.1184111937@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:41:43 %2B0100." <20070711003958.V8913@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20070711003958.V8913@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes: >On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> The OpenBSD stuff is a 1980 style hack, and should not be propagated. > >This argument would be more convincing if accompanied by a concrete example, >fabricated or otherwise. Are you suggesting, for example, adding newbus >sensor methods associated with existing driver attachments? I'm not advocating that we actually tro to overengineer a solution for this stuff. As long as the hardware people don't think about where the slam down the sensors, there is little chance of us making any kind of sense of their measurements without the context which we often have to glean from physical inspection. I'm objecting to the OpenBSD code because it gives the impression of order and structure, where none exists. -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53931.1184111937>