[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: (Semi-random) thoughts on device tree structure and devfs
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Masao Uebayashi
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:13 AM, David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:49:02PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>>> > The code providing DKWEDGE_METHOD_GPT already has the knowledge. I
>>> > don't think that the knowledge has to move from there. All that dk(4)
>>> > has to do is to match device-properties lists, and for that it can use
>>> > the same library function as every other match routine will use.
>>> What if you want to mount a NIC as /? You'll fix all drivers?
>> Of course you have to fix drivers. Drivers don't extract the device
>> properties and store them in a standard form, today.
>>> All of you say that lookup-by-ID works in your way. It's possible,
>>> because ID is unique. What I'm talking is the best design how to do
>>> it. Now raidframe(4) alreadys does it itself, why do you have same
>>> logic in raidframe(4) and dk(4)?
>> What do you mean, the same logic?
>>> I think dk(4) does too many things. That means you have to
>>> re-implement same logic in many places. That also means users have to
>>> learn all devices' behavior.
>> Drivers have to know how to extract properties such as MAC address from
>> their devices. I don't think that we can avoid that. If drivers record
>> the properties that they extract under standard keys, then we can match
>> them using a library function.
> OK, you want to match device by ID. Like:
> fxp* macaddr xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
> That might make sense.
Remember the cost to fix drivers to extract IDs in match(). Now I see
no value doing this.
Main Index |
Thread Index |