James Carlson wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
>
>> Oops, that should say I'm "not" changing the size allowed. The
>> "interface" impact for device drivers is that they get a bigger M_DATA
>> now, rather than a chain of smaller M_DATAs. AFAICT, there is no real
>> public spec for how the data will be broken up.
>>
>> I've not proposed to change the spec for drivers so that they can know
>> that it will all be in one M_DATA, but it may be worth doing that. I'll
>> file a case.
>>
>
> If an RTI Advocate were to ask me about a change like that, I'd say
> that it likely flies under the ARC radar.
>
> Decreasing the allowable size of the M_DATA blocks could potentially
> cause existing modules to fall apart, but it's hard to see how
> increasing it has any interesting impact on anything.
>
> I'd say "looks good; drive on."
>
>
I just submitted an auto-approval case -- at least it records the
change. I may or may not wait for anyone else to comment on it though.
(Probably I'll file the RTI on Monday. I think its too late to get a
meaningful RTI review today.) I really do think it is probably an
under-the-radar issue as well.
Btw, this this mean I can cite you as a code reviewer?
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
