On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 07:59:42PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 04:53:51PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote: > > First, as to the kernel implementation issue. Adding a new IKOT_* flavor > > is not really hard, and having extra flavors for machine-specific features > > is fine by me. But I was also thinking it might just be easiest to stick > > with device_t anyway, since it has the IPC setup all dealt with already > > (and the various new bits of IKOT_* and intran/outtran magic would just > > duplicate what's there for device_t). > > This sounds reasonable. It would be a dummy device with only side effects. > However, if possible, I think it makes sense to give the RPC arguments a > name different from device_t, to avoid confusion.
On the user side only, of course. Sorry for being imprecise. Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
