Leland, You are right, this needs to go, but we do want to set our priorities such we do not waste efforts on parts that we are thinking of rewriting anyway. This applies to more then just the devblk thing, right now we are changing the way devblk's are build (you can already see this in the 3.00 release), but you are right, there is a lot more work to be done. The way the channel subsystem operates and interfaces with devices is another example.
Jan Jaeger.
From: Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hercules 3.00 announcement Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 07:52:58 -0500
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:38:04AM -0500, Lucius, Leland wrote: > Wow. I can't believe you guys are still caring around every device types > baggage in the DEVBLK for each device. Why should a DASD device allocate > storage that would be used for a TAPE device. Mind, it taint much, but...
Now that we're in a better position to isolate things, I'm sure someone will look at this... I'll forward a copy to the developers' list.
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Zoeken, voor duidelijke zoekresultaten! http://search.msn.nl
