Re: cdevsw_add
Basically I'm not working on devfs at the moment since the bit that made it workable was ripped out with extreme prejudice by someone. I'm still absolutly convinced that a dynamic device registration and export framework is required in the long run, but I'm not fussed if it's based on the current devfs or an successor. I'd feel a bit happier about spending more time on it If I had any thought that the result would not be ripped out by the throat as soon as it works again, by a maniac that doesn't understand that it's a working subsystem (it was fully working at the time it was vandaliased but the nice fellow didn't even try it, and I got no warning except the commit message). There were two known problems that were based in other parts of the code (mfs and some vfs/module stuff) And the install software couldn't install with it. If PHK is working an a framework to make this easier, I'd love to get a white-paper on the topic because it's all unknown stuff at the moment. To get it going, you basically need to reverse the backout commits done by SOS a year ago. DEVSF itself works, but it needs a different disk subsystem to be able to represent dynamic disk partitions properly. julian On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Nick Hibma wrote: > > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not? > > > > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure > > it should be based on in the kernel. > > Anymore information available on where you are with this? > > Cheers, > > Nick > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: cdevsw_add
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , Nick Hibma
> writes:
> > > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
> > >
> > > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure
> > > it should be based on in the kernel.
> >
> >Anymore information available on where you are with this?
>
> I currently have a kernel running where dev_t is a pointer to a
> "struct dev" and where char and block devs are collapsed at the
> dev_t level. There are some bogons i need to fumigate, but I'm
> off to give a course in Stockholm much of this coming week, so
> don't expect any commits just now. (I may actually postpone/abandon
> this step for now, since some of the changes pulls rugs away which
> cover what looks to me like holes in the floor).
>
> Next is to integrate the dev_t anti-aliasing and vnode anti-aliasing
> code.
>
> When I have that bit down and done, the next step is for device
> drivers to register individual dev_t's rather than blanket cdevsw
> entries. The later ability will be retained for pseudo drivers
> and other (pseudo)magic.
>
> This registration will look pretty much like the current #ifdef'ed
> DEVFS stuff, and in addition it will allow the driver to hang two
> fields of the dev_t, typically a pointer to the struct softc and
> maybe a unit number or something. This will obsolete all of
> the magic minor -> {unit|softc} converters in our drivers and
> make the "NFOO" configuration obsolete.
>
> That is, as such the end of this little project, and where a future
> DEVFS could take off from. Basically all that is needed for a DEVFS
> to do, is to hook into the dev_t maintenance code and construct
> the directory tree.
DEVFS has always meant to do exactly this.
there is already a place in the structure for these two fields,
and when devfs is running, the devsw[] table is not consulted.
The vnode already contains a direct pointer to the devsw entry and a
cookie (minor number), and these are called directly.
there is already a node type for the 'unified' device type.
there are three types of device in devfs
BDEV, CDEV and DDEV.
DDEV has only a pointer to teh methods and a cookie. (as you suggest
above)
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
> p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
> FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: cdevsw_add
In message , Nick Hibma
writes:
> > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not?
> >
> > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure
> > it should be based on in the kernel.
>
>Anymore information available on where you are with this?
I currently have a kernel running where dev_t is a pointer to a
"struct dev" and where char and block devs are collapsed at the
dev_t level. There are some bogons i need to fumigate, but I'm
off to give a course in Stockholm much of this coming week, so
don't expect any commits just now. (I may actually postpone/abandon
this step for now, since some of the changes pulls rugs away which
cover what looks to me like holes in the floor).
Next is to integrate the dev_t anti-aliasing and vnode anti-aliasing
code.
When I have that bit down and done, the next step is for device
drivers to register individual dev_t's rather than blanket cdevsw
entries. The later ability will be retained for pseudo drivers
and other (pseudo)magic.
This registration will look pretty much like the current #ifdef'ed
DEVFS stuff, and in addition it will allow the driver to hang two
fields of the dev_t, typically a pointer to the struct softc and
maybe a unit number or something. This will obsolete all of
the magic minor -> {unit|softc} converters in our drivers and
make the "NFOO" configuration obsolete.
That is, as such the end of this little project, and where a future
DEVFS could take off from. Basically all that is needed for a DEVFS
to do, is to hook into the dev_t maintenance code and construct
the directory tree.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: cdevsw_add
> >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not? > > I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure > it should be based on in the kernel. Anymore information available on where you are with this? Cheers, Nick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: cdevsw_add
In message , Nick Hibma writes: > >While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not? > >I'd like to know whether there is some interest in getting that work >underway again. More than interested to help. I'm not currently working on devfs, but I am building the infrastructure it should be based on in the kernel. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: cdevsw_add
While on the topic: Who is working on devfs and why not? I'd like to know whether there is some interest in getting that work underway again. More than interested to help. > You're forgetting that devsw[] is another stopgap. The kernel should > probably use something like devfs, where dev_t's only exist for devices > that actually exist. xxx_init() is far too early to decide which hardware > devices exist. > > Bruce Nick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
