[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/miscfs/specfs
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>
> On Tue Apr 13 2010 at 13:25:24 +0000, Andrew Doran wrote:
>> So the result of our teeth-pulling so far is:
>> 1. You are concerned about namespace conflicts. I am too.
>> 2. I would be happy to see these managed through documentation and
>> a straightforward approval process for adding modules.
> There is an additional pitfall with this. We don't control all modules
> and cannot be sure potential 3rd parties use the same processes.
>> 3. You suggest that it would be better for the computer to manage it.
> Maybe not manage it, but at least detect it and fail gracefully.
>> Can you suggest an alternative mechanism that will (a) allow us to
>> autoload things that are not anointed device drivers and (b) satisfy
>> your concerns?
> devfs ;)
> IOW, Given that we don't know where we most likely are in 6 months,
> I'm not too keen on trying to spend energy to solve this right now ...
>> As an example of something that wants autoloading both as a file
>> system and a driver, see ZFS.
> ... if zfs is the only use case, since IIUC it's broken anyway.
> Meanwhile, if there is something else which is catastrophically broken
> due to lack of holy christening, we can revisit this and see if just
> flipping the switch and maybe writing a simple audit script to verify
> no collisions is the path of least wailing (this would be close to "2").
I like module names to become longer and unambiguous by making them
match the relative paths in src/sys, like "sys/ufs/ffs/ffs.kmod". I
don't think of any reason why module (driver, filesystem, ...) names
need to be very short.
Main Index |
Thread Index |