Re: port-prep/55003

[T <bobs%thelibertytree.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR port-prep/55003; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: T <bobs%thelibertytree.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
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
 > Cc:
 > 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."
 >