Freeman Liu wrote: > >>>> >>> In this phase, only sadasupport open it by ldi_ interface. And in the >>> future, both user land applications and >>> sadasupport will use it. I feel this solution can avoid unexpected >>> effect as well as make the future migration >>> smooth. >> >> So in this case there is no userland program that will ever need to >> open /dev/dsp ? If so then I think the best option is not to create >> it at all even as /dev/private/dsp.
> From this point of view, you are right. While from another point of > view, since the visibility of this interface will be promoted in > following phases, Best to only make it visible when it is usable for the reasons others have pointed out. Also if for some reason the future cases never happened or end up being different we aren't left with an unusable /dev/dsp in the namespace. > we feel the current approach is a simple one without too much risk. > Anyway, if any serious concern emerges which we have overlooked, making > it a internal node will be a good approach. I believe what you are hearing from ARC memebers is that the risk of having /dev/dsp visible when it isn't usable is too high to be acceptable. -- Darren J Moffat
