On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:04:36 +0100 Hans Petter Selasky <h...@selasky.org> wrote:
> On 10/30/15 08:41, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:28:51 +0100 > > Hans Petter Selasky <h...@selasky.org> wrote: > > > >> On 10/29/15 15:36, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > >>>> The LinuxKPI is not a binary compatibility module, and will at some > >>> H> point have API's diverging from Linux, to fit BSD API's better. > >>> > >>> This statement makes the name of LinuxKPI quite pointless, as well > >>> as the whole idea of the KPI unclear. > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> To be more clear. Adding bind_irq_to_cpu() is more an exception than the > >> default. A the moment I think Linux doesn't have an equivalent of this > >> function, because of Linux's interrupt model. > >> > > > > My question is whether a "normal" FreeBSD user has any reason to > > enable LinuxKPI now or in the future. > > > > Hi, > > If drivers which depend on this feature are KLD's there's no reason to > enable this by default in GENERIC. The current and future clients of > LINUXKPI will possibly be KLD's and then MODULE_DEPEND() will do the > magic behind the scenes. Was this your question? > Well, I guess the answer is "no", if I understand you correctly. -- Gary Jennejohn _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
