Sebastien Roy wrote: > 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. > Alright. I'll remove the 64-bit part.
-sagun
