eeh@netbsd.org writes:

	> 	Why not recycle those good old tried and tested favorites, like read(2)
	> 	and write(2)? Then all your users need is a working shell.
	> 
	> These are not really supposed to be manipulated from userland.  The
	> primary purpose of this is for communication between various parts
	> of the kernel, hence the interface are designed for efficient use
	> inside the kernel.  Userland access is of secondary, or even
	> tertiary importance.

	?? Sorry for butting in orignally, I seem to have got the wrong end of
	the stick. Could you give some examples of the kind of use you were
	imagining?

The originaltarget for this would be to implement device properties.
You can read about those in the tech-kern archives.

	> Also, since this is primarily designed for communication between
	> different modules in the kernel, 

	Sort of microkernel? Or CORBA in kernel?

Separate drivers, LKMs, etc.

	> The generic properties infrastructure has no knowledge of the
	> structure of the underlying data layout.

	(Perhaps you should change it then, always good to keep structure)

Since it's designed to be generic, any such attempts would eiter
limit the usefulness or make the whole thing much too complicated.

Eduardo