Subject: Re: NATM broken: atm needs-flag vs options NATM
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/06/1998 23:19:09
[ On Mon, July 6, 1998 at 09:59:53 (-0700), Colin Wood wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: NATM broken: atm needs-flag vs options NATM
> Do you really want to have to go change every driver with the "needs-flag"
> attribute and every port's conf.c, tho? I realize this could be
> automated, but still....
I'd not be afraid of such a change, however for what it's worth I do
agree that it may not be a good idea because of the added
incompatability it would introduce for drivers that tried to be portable
to multiple *BSD platforms (or even non-BSD platforms). On the other
hand after having recently writing a driver for FreeBSD, I'm not very
enthused about driver portability any more....
> I think a general guideline of "no option can begin with an 'N' unless
> it's extrememly unlikely to conflict with any current or future device
> driver" might be better. I mean, what's the likelihood of a driver being
> named "ullfs" or "fsserver"? ;-)
Well, you never know.... Nobody would ever call a child "Moon Unit",
now would they? ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>