Peter Memishian wrote: > > >> http://cr.grommit.com/~yun/webrev_uv_09_28 > > >> > > > Hi Cathy, > > > > > > Except for the one below I don't have any additional comments since they > > > have been addressed in the preliminary round of review. > > > > > > *usr/src/lib/libdlpi/common/libdlpi.c* > > > 92: I know the flags argument in dlpi_walk() has been removed due to my > > > question in the last round of review. But since dlpi_walk() is a public > > > interface and we know the 'flags' argument will be added eventually for > > > IP observability. We should just keep it there even though it will not > > > be used by UV? > > > > > Sure. I will definitely add it back if UV is putback after IPO. > > I'd much prefer if we added back that argument now. Although committed > interfaces that are new in a specific release can continue to change until > the release ships, it's safer to adhere to "FCS all the time" and have > interfaces in their final state from day one. We followed this same > principle with other interfaces such as dlpi_info(). > Okay.
- Cathy
