[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
The following reply was made to PR port-prep/55003; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: T <bobs%thelibertytree.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: port-prep/55003
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:44:10 -0700
Hi mlelstv, thanks for the response. I don't know the historical context
for why the original design choices where made, but simply worked with
the existing code, which implemented a blacklist of devices to skip from
further processing. If you think using a whitelist would be better, I
wouldn't challenge the idea because you are way more knowledgeable, I'm
very new to this. There are some concerns from my perspective about the
current situation. The main one being that I only have one PReP machine,
so it could potentially cause issues for other ones. The port-prep
mailing list does see some activity, but it is difficult to find other
active users for testing issues I find or potential changes. This makes
me hesitant to introduce major revisions to existing code since I can't
get verification that issues are specific to my machine. Whitelisting
based on device_class would probably be ideal, but as you mentioned on
IRC, enumerations like DEV_BUS are not currently implemented in bus
drivers. That would require all potential bus devices to be checked with
device_is_a and may be comparable in size to the existing blacklist.
Perhaps a comment should be added to the function to recommend a
re-write using a whitelist when those enumerations are widely implemented?
On 2/24/20 4:20 AM, Michael van Elst wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR port-prep/55003; it has been noted by GNATS.
> From: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)
> To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: port-prep/55003
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:16:09 -0000 (UTC)
> bobs%thelibertytree.org@localhost (T) writes:
> > Hello, I have a modification for this ticket. There are a couple more
> > devices that should be blacklisted and I figured out a related problem
> > in the same area that overlaps with this function.
> Wouldn't it be much easier to stay with the whitelist?
> This would also avoid using an uninitialized devpath. I wonder
> why the compiler doesn't warn about it.
> Michael van Elst
> Internet: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost
> "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
Main Index |
Thread Index |