Hi: Since newconfig appears technically superior, what are the issues that are hindering its acceptance?
Rick Whitesel ----- Original Message ----- From: Noriyuki Soda <s...@sra.co.jp> To: Rick Whitesel <rwhite...@nbase-xyplex.com> Cc: Noriyuki Soda <s...@sra.co.jp>; <curr...@freebsd.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 9:41 AM Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c >>>>> On Wed, 12 May 1999 09:35:36 -0400, "Rick Whitesel" <rwhite...@nbase-xyplex.com> said: > In general I believe that dynamic configuration of the system is > extremely useful to both the development community and the user > community. The development community has a much easier time if they > can load / unload drivers. As for the users, my rule of thumb is > that a computer should never ask a human the answer to a question > that it can find out for itself. I think this is especially true for > configuration information. In addition, the need for dynamic system > (re)configuration will only increase as features like PCI hot swap > become the standard. Of course, I completely agree with you. The reason I prefer newconfig is it actually can support dynamic configuration better than the new-bus. All features which new-bus has can be implemented on newconfig, too. And, more. (See the description about on-demand dynamic loading in my previous post.) Furthremore, newconfig does static configuration better than the new-bus, and newconfig has a option which removes dynamic configuration entirely from kernel. New-bus apparently doesn't have this option. So, which is flexible ? :-) -- s...@sra.co.jp Software Research Associates, Inc., Japan (Noriyuki Soda) Advanced Technology Group. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message