Greywolf wrote:
> # On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Jaromir Dolecek wrote:
> # 
> # I don't see general need need for emulation 'init' function. Exactly
> # one emulation can take advantage of it, and even the one runs
> # perfectly fine the current way.
> 
> At the moment this may be true, sure.  But is this forward-thinking
> at all?

less bloat in generic code == good

Mach emulation doesn't need to adjust any OS parameters or structures,
so it doesn't need to run it's initialization on boot. It's perfectly
fine to execute the stuff when first Mach process is executed, IMHO.

So, we have one emulation which would take cosmetic advantage of such
thing (e_init called on boot), and no emulation which would need
it to work properly. I don't think it would be appropriate to add
the framework in this situation.

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-