sagun shakya wrote: > Sebastien Roy wrote: >> * What does the 64-bit libdladm work have to do with the DLPI API? I >> know that we were already in libuuid and removing unnecessary code, >> but I don't see the architectural link with the title of this case >> since the change is to libdladm. If it's not architecturally related >> and doesn't involve public interfaces, then it might be better suited >> for a separate (perhaps self-review/approved-automatic) case. Any >> other opinions on this? > > There isn't an architectural link with the DLPI API. I agree that a > separate case is appropriate.
Let's go one step further and remove this part of the fast-track. I just conferred with a PSARC member who confirmed our earlier feeling that perhaps this wasn't worth ARC'ing to begin with. The library contains strictly Consolidation Private interfaces, the filessystem namespace for the library has already been carved out, and there are no architectural gotchas with this work (i.e., including only an amd64 version or only a SPARCv9 version). It's not really ARC worthy. -Seb
