On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Matthew Dillon <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing I think may be a liability is the knote migration to devfs > on detach. I think it might be better to implement the knotes in devfs > only and make devices use the devfs-supplied structure(s) (probably just > dev_t, even) for managing knotes. > > -Matt >
I have been contemplating this a bit too -- how to make the filters more stateless (get rid of the lists) or at least make the list handling more implicit. This seems like a reasonable approach. I think I would be in favor of going about a refactor in the way you describe, assuming that we export a new interface/api from devfs for devices with a devfs node and that api is kept seperate from the existing kq api's (I guess it would be a wrapper), which will continue to service files/sockets (and devfs) directly. I think it is already a relatively confusing subsystem and drawing a line there would at least keep it from becoming more complicated. Sam
