> > I wonder whether this is the proper abstraction level. We might as well do
> > the following:
> > 
> > rdtresources[] = {
> >      {
> >     .name   = "L3",
> >      },
> >      {
> >     .name   = "L3Data",
> >      },
> >      {
> >     .name   = "L3Code",
> >      },
> > 
> > and enable either L3 or L3Data+L3Code. Not sure if that makes things
> > simpler, but it's definitely worth a thought or two.
> 
> This way will be better than having cdp_enabled/capable for L3 and not
> for L2.  And this doesn't change current userinterface design either,
> I think.

User interface would change if you did this. The schemata file would
look like this with CDP enabled:

# cat schemata
L3Data:0=fffff;1=fffff;2=fffff;3=fffff
L3Code:0=fffff;1=fffff;2=fffff;3=fffff

but that is easier to read than the current:

# cat schemata
L3:0=fffff,fffff;1=fffff,fffff;2=fffff,fffff;3=fffff,fffff

which gives you no clue on which mask is code and which is data.

We'd also end up with "info/L3Data/" and "info/L3code/"
which would be a little redundant (since the files in each
would contain the same numbers), but perhaps that is worth
it to get the better schemata file.

-Tony

Reply via email to