Ron's reply sums it up nicely and caught me in mid-composition in a similar vein, although I was using a lot of ALL CAPS to make some points.
--jim On Fri Sep 9 11:21:02 EDT 2005, [email protected] wrote: > erik quanstrom wrote: > > > for a toehold on the problem, it looks like the cardbus > > code (/sys/boot/pc/devpccard.c:828) and the functions > > upamalloc() and upafree() in memory.c allow some kernel-level > > dynamic memory. (although upafree() doesn't do anything.) > > > > My impression in general is that the device stuff in Plan 9 is not > terribly dynamic -- not surprising, given the time in which the code was > written. > > It would be cool if devices could be as dynamic as file systems. > > Not an issue in my world, but it's getting to be very important in the > rest of the world, where hotplug is the order of the day, even including > hotplug CPUs and memory at this point. PCMCIA -- that's old news :-) > > Anyway, I hope some smart people out there will take this as a challenge > in the kernel space and start thinking about it. Plan 9 is not as > advanced, as some other OSes, in the area of dynamic device management. > > ron
