Subject: Re: NATM broken: atm needs-flag vs options NATM
To: Guenther Grau <>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 07/06/1998 11:01:52
Guenther Grau <> writes:

>People still might confuse it in the code. I'd prefer
>the _FLAG solution or reserving the name space N*. I
>thought NetBSD wanted to DTRT. So why not change things
>once and be safe in the future?

We _can't_ reserve the entire N* kernel namespace; it's far too
late. There are (probably literally) hundreds of driver-specific
#defines that start with N.  Besides, it conflicts with the names for
certain network protocol "options" (Xerox NS, NSIP, NETATALK).

The N* convention goes back to, if memory serves, at least 4.2BSD.
Changing it erodes source-level compatiblitiy with other *BSDs.

>Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>> why not just detect NFOO vs FOO conflicts when running config..
>> i.e., if there's a defopt NFOO and a `foo needs-count' or `foo
>> needs-flag', just complain about the conflict..

that works for me.  We just have to train developers to check for
such conflicts before adding new options or new "needs-flag" devices.