Subject: Re: An approach for detachable interfaces.
To: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/05/1999 17:47:35
> I said weird, because the whole notion of "remove a device, but have
> the kernel pretend some aspects of the device are still there," is
> just plain weird. If a device is gone, it should be gone completely
> from the kernel.
This is an interesting assertion to make; everything else you say
follows from it, but I'm not convinced that this should always be true
for every single subsystem.
> I thought that much work had already been done towards that goal.
> It seems wasteful and ... less than optimal to throw that away and
> move forward on a plan that seems, at least to me, to provide
> fundamentally incorrect operation.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but as best as I can tell, the people who
did the earlier work have dropped the ball and nobody other than me
seems willing to pick it up. I took a stab at merging their previous
work up to -current and the number and nature of the things touched by
the branch was such that it felt like the approach they took was not
I'm exploring another alternative here.. I think regardless of what we
do here, it's going to be messy.
> Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.