Collapsing device_state_t with devinfo_state_t

[Attilio Rao-2]

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]"

[Attilio Rao-2]

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]"

[Warner Losh]

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]"

[Scott Long-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]"

[Attilio Rao-2]

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]"