This patch should collpase device_state_t with devinfo_state_t and
remove a bogus replication of this struct: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/devinfo.diff This patch breaks ABI so it cannot be MFC'ed (and it is not intended to do). Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-new-bus To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
2009/11/8 Attilio Rao <[hidden email]>:
> This patch should collpase device_state_t with devinfo_state_t and > remove a bogus replication of this struct: > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/devinfo.diff Sorry, forgot to mention: I thought about adding _bus.h interface because I thought that devinfo.h wanted to avoid a namespace pollution, but that's not really the case as 85% of the bus.h is already under _KERNEL labels. That means the pollution is minimal and restricted to 1-2 further structs. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-new-bus To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
In message: <[hidden email]>
Attilio Rao <[hidden email]> writes: : 2009/11/8 Attilio Rao <[hidden email]>: : > This patch should collpase device_state_t with devinfo_state_t and : > remove a bogus replication of this struct: : > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/devinfo.diff : : Sorry, forgot to mention: : I thought about adding _bus.h interface because I thought that : devinfo.h wanted to avoid a namespace pollution, but that's not really : the case as 85% of the bus.h is already under _KERNEL labels. That : means the pollution is minimal and restricted to 1-2 further structs. I'm cool with this patch, and that decision. Warner _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-new-bus To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
In reply to this post by Attilio Rao-2
On Nov 8, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> This patch should collpase device_state_t with devinfo_state_t and > remove a bogus replication of this struct: > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/devinfo.diff > > This patch breaks ABI so it cannot be MFC'ed (and it is not intended > to do). > Does this hinder FreeBSD 8 from ever getting a Giant-free newbus? Scott _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-new-bus To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
2009/11/9 Scott Long <[hidden email]>:
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Attilio Rao wrote: >> >> This patch should collpase device_state_t with devinfo_state_t and >> remove a bogus replication of this struct: >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/devinfo.diff >> >> This patch breaks ABI so it cannot be MFC'ed (and it is not intended to >> do). >> > > Does this hinder FreeBSD 8 from ever getting a Giant-free newbus? As foretold in several e-mails and threads, FreeBSD-8 has all the needed support for Giant-free newbus, that's just an improvement I couldn't let happen before because we had to maintain ABI stability over the release process, but it doesn't compromise at all possibility to MFC Giant-free newbus. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ [hidden email] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-new-bus To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]" |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |