Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 11:12:27PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> > 
> > But is there any reason that these vendors shouldn't use the system call 
> > slots
> > that have been allocated for LKMs?  This would seem to fit their needs 
> > almost
> > perfectly unless said vendors are also loading system calls via 
> > LKMs...although
> > there are only 10 such slots.
>
> I don't particularly object, but it does seem a little ugly.  I guess
> I'm more concerned that there are only 10.
>
> I'm just suggesting that we set 25 or 50 slots aside and leave them
> that way -- it's been done before, but as the table went through
> multiple owners, the "leave them that way" part didn't happen; with
> proper documentation, just reserving some of the existing space seems
> like the simple, effective solution.
>   

My issue with this is that we're reserving part of a number space
that cannot be endlessly expanded without cost for the sole
benefit of vendors that may or may not provide useful feedback
to NetBSD...  I'm thinking what big picture thing does making
this reservation serve?

I'd rather see a "local use space", where LKMs are the default user,
used by vendors.  To my way of thinking, these "reserved slots" for
LKMs are no different from a vendor perspective than marking them
reserved for vendors.  I find it highly unlikely that any user is going to
load such an LKM on such a vendor system.

So at least if we expand the LKM size from 10 to 20, we can argue
that there is some direct benefit for NetBSD users too :)

Darren