On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, der Mouse wrote:
In passing, would it be appropriate and/or useful to suggest improvements to that API? When I was writing code, I found the envsys(4) ioctls to be deficient for my purposes. (Not cripplingly so, but annoyingly so.) Would it be useful to outline what I as an application author would like to see, and, if so, should I do it here, or in a change-request PR, or what?
I'd be interested in knowing in which ways you found the current API lacking. I won't make any promises to improve or enhance, but if it makes sense, and can be done without breaking any backwards compat, it can be considered.
Open discussion on a mailing list is probably a good idea, but it should not be a port-specific list. I think tech-kern@ would be appropriate. It's also a good idea to open the change-request PR, in my opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: | | Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com | | Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net | | Kernel Developer | | pgoyette at netbsd.org | -------------------------------------------------------------------------