Subject: Re: envsys(4), envstat(8) and detachable sensors.
To: Jeff Rizzo <email@example.com>
From: Tim Rightnour <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/05/2006 23:29:44
On 05-May-2006 Jeff Rizzo wrote:
> OK, so this would effectively be a "high water mark"? IE, the maximum
> number that have ever been in the machine, but not necessarily the
> number in there now? I think this could work OK.
Yes.. precisely.. we have a high water mark, and it only gets incremented if
they are all valid and we add yet another sensor. Basically it gives envstat a
stopping point for it's scan.
> So, don't do anything in particular with this information in the kernel,
> but allow userland to access it via envsys_basic_info? I like this -
> keeps the kernel changes to a minimum.
Yeah.. I see no valid reason the kernel should care if we make it possible to
track the sensors through the userland API.
> I like the thinking you've done about this; unless someone else wants
> to chime in, I'll take a stab at implementing your suggestions when I
> get a chance, and send diffs to the list. (unless you'd like to do it;
> the changes seem straightforward, but I'm unlikely to have time to get
> to it real soon - I'm interested in this, but it's not real high on my
> personal priority list right now)
I doubt I'll have time anywhere in the near future. I'll do it myself
eventually if you never get to it.. but it likely won't be soon, so please feel
Tim Rightnour <email@example.com>
NetBSD: Free multi-architecture OS http://www.netbsd.org/
Genecys: Open Source 3D MMORPG: http://www.genecys.org/