Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:25:34 +0100 (BST)
From:      Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>
To:        "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
Cc:        Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Juha.Nurmela@quicknet.inet.fi, Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com>, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Proposing argv for klds and preloaded modules
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908022024390.385-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <37A5D5DC.30CC6BE2@newsguy.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:

> Warner Losh wrote:
> > 
> > In message <37A5C680.3CA1DBD2@newsguy.com> "Daniel C. Sobral" writes:
> > : Modules are not just drivers. Forget about drivers, and try again.
> > : :-)
> > 
> > But the generic mechanism extends beyond just drivers :-)
> 
> Ah, I recall now. Something similar to the way X works, with all the
> information stored in a file instead of passed on the command line.
> 
> If things are passed on the command line, we put a getopt() in the
> kernel and that's that. Get the _string_ to the application, and let
> it do it's job. We'll seriously regret anything else.
> 
> For that matter, when I was working on loader's commands, I want to
> pre-process their arguments. That idea was shot down on the grounds
> that we can't foresee what the applications will need as parameters.
> The same applies here, right?
> 
> So, here is my take. On one hand, we have Juha's code. The change
> proposed needs a new syscall. The sooner we make the change,
> assuming we are making it at all, the less pain. It provides a way
> of getting parameters that is compatible with what is already
> possible with loader (ie, the module need not differentiate between
> it's method of loading). The code is working and ready.
> 
> On the other hand, we have a vaguely defined vapourware that looks
> real cool, and will be done some day after other outstanding
> priorities are dealt with.
> 
> I'm not a fan of adding code to FreeBSD just because it exists. That
> _is_ one thing we do different from another popular open source OS,
> and which serves us well. If the code is crass, does not serve us
> well, is kitchen-sink bloating, or goes in a direction we see as a
> dead-end, it should not be imported.
> 
> Alas, it seems none of the above applies. Even if we *do* come up
> with something better later, this code won't get in the way any more
> than what's in loader(8) already does. In that light, I think we
> ought to import it into our tree.
> 
> BTW, won't any of the kld gods speak up?

I'm currently extremely distracted by non-FreeBSD work and will be so
until after SIGGRAPH. If Peter doesn't show an interest before then remind
me in a couple of weeks.

--
Doug Rabson				Mail:  dfr@nlsystems.com
Nonlinear Systems Ltd.			Phone: +44 181 442 9037




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9908022024390.385-100000>