On (06/19/07 11:09), James Carlson wrote: > > > Would it be good for us to retain them somehow in early phase of Brussel, > > > like by ways of keep it as "private" properties? For backward > > > compatibility > > > reason, some customers might rely on those private properties in their > > > production env. Before we provide enough tuning in framework, they will > > > lose nothing. > > > > I like Raymond's proposal.. > > I'd rather see those things left behind whereever they are -- ndd, > driver.conf -- and left out of Brussels user interfaces, with bugs > filed to have them removed completely over time.
I suppose we could leave these behind as legacy-ndd tunables, but here's another scenario: what if the driver legitimately has a complex algorithm or hardware feature that a clueful administrator may want to reset from defaults (and retain setting over reboot)? Seems like this might make a good candidate for a private property. Of course, both alternatives (hacking confusing/unnecessary tunable as a dladm private property vs ndd/driver.conf) are equally ugly. --Sowmini
