#I'm busy recently, and shocked by suddenly new-bus merge
#happening (I think, its process is not fair). I was lost my head.
#Also, one of stress cause is language barrier. English is hard
#for me. It is my weak point.
Not a problem; most of us do not speak Japanese. :-)
I am looking forward
Tomoaki NISHIYAMA wrote:
From: NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp
y-nakaga You bought a computer with the super-ultra-new Microsoft (tm)
y-nakaga Microsoft Bus (tm), for which you bought the latest and greatest
y-nakaga device X.
y-nakaga
y-nakaga It is extremely vulgar joke. I
On Sat, 15 May 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Tomoaki NISHIYAMA wrote:
From: NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp
y-nakaga You bought a computer with the super-ultra-new Microsoft (tm)
y-nakaga Microsoft Bus (tm), for which you bought the latest and greatest
y-nakaga device
), or postponement until
after Usenix.
How do you think?
(*1)
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c
Message-ID: pine.bsf.3.95.990512165327.22596i-100...@current1.whistle.com
(*2)
From: Daniel C. Sobral d
On Sat, 15 May 1999, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 1999 10:41:23 +0100 (BST),
Doug Rabson d...@nlsystems.com said:
As I suspected, a massive flamewar has happened while I've been away. I
don't think I have anything to add to what has been said (and I certainly
don't want to
On Sat, 15 May 1999 15:58:01 +0100 (BST),
Doug Rabson d...@nlsystems.com said:
I would like to postpone until after Usenix. I'm sure that we will be able
to sort out any technical misunderstandings there which will make it
possible to have a reasonable public discussion.
OK, I'll
I replied to this in private, but, for the record, it was not a
joke.
Ok, I see your say. I feel inadequate metaphor and provocation
form, so that message seemed vulgar joke.
New-bus's goal is meaningful, but not only that one. Also
newconfig is same. Difference between these is realization
NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp writes:
Then explain to us why newbus is wrong and why the 4.4BSD scheme is
right.
Because, you are misunderstanding 4.4BSD scheme (and newconfig).
This is pointless. All you're doing is pointing your finger and
screaming It's not right! It's not
This is pointless. All you're doing is pointing your finger and
screaming It's not right! It's not fair! without saying anything of
actual value.
OK OK, you are right. I have language barrier, so I can't explain
well. I talk other newconfig member, one of member, Furuta-san
will go to Usenix
NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp writes:
OK OK, you are right. I have language barrier, so I can't explain
well. I talk other newconfig member, one of member, Furuta-san
will go to Usenix and presentation of newconfig paper.
Any chance of getting a preview of that paper? Is it, or
Any chance of getting a preview of that paper? Is it, or will it be,
available on the Web?
I don't know, probably the paper not yet available on Web. Please
ask to Furuta-san.
--
NAKAGAWA, Yoshihisa
y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp
nakag...@jp.freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Mike Smith once wrote:
For a usable dynamic architecture, loadable modules need to be
compiled to support both UP and SMP architectures simultaneously. Thus
the locking primitives need to be conditionalised at _runtime_.
What about
kldload
In article xzphfpg3tmo@localhost.ping.uio.no,
Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no writes:
Any chance of getting a preview of that paper? Is it, or will it be,
available on the Web?
Nakagawa-san slightly misunderstands. I have no time to write full
paper, so I have already
NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa wrote:
Then explain to us why newbus is wrong and why the 4.4BSD scheme is
right.
Because, you are misunderstanding 4.4BSD scheme (and newconfig).
The *GOAL* here is the following:
You bought a computer with the super-ultra-new Microsoft (tm)
Microsoft Bus (tm), for
David Schwartz wrote:
Believe it or not, good ideas can even come from people who can't
code at
all, and the ideas are just as good. Slapping these people down just ensures
they don't contribute in the future.
Now if their ideas genuinely are bad, you are more than
You bought a computer with the super-ultra-new Microsoft (tm)
Microsoft Bus (tm), for which you bought the latest and greatest
device X.
It is extremely vulgar joke. I doubt your character.
--
NAKAGAWA, Yoshihisa
y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp
nakag...@jp.freebsd.org
To
From: NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp
y-nakaga You bought a computer with the super-ultra-new Microsoft (tm)
y-nakaga Microsoft Bus (tm), for which you bought the latest and greatest
y-nakaga device X.
y-nakaga
y-nakaga It is extremely vulgar joke. I doubt your character.
No, I
From: Peter Wemm pe...@netplex.com.au
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 06:24:12 +0800
Message-ID: 1999051414.e2dda1...@spinner.netplex.com.au
peter What on earth is the locator stuff for? Why can't you use plain text?
peter How does 'iobase 0x280
From: Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:12:05 -0700
Message-ID: 67065.926554...@zippy.cdrom.com
jkh I have seen a lot of arguing about technical merits and decisions made
jkh by the core team, but I have yet to see
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
BTW, there are many fundamental design flaws in new-bus, so I don't
think new-bus is comparable with newconfig, yet, even if priority
probe is implemented. For example:
I'm not going to reply to these points as I suspect it will lead to a
NOTE: Please Cc: s...@sra.co.jp, I am not subscribing this mailing
list, because I am a NetBSD user. :-)
It depends on old-config, so poor mechanism. newconfig already
implimented best match probe/attach.
And a very useful mechanism it is. Which is why I implemented priority
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
NOTE: Please Cc: s...@sra.co.jp, I am not subscribing this mailing
list, because I am a NetBSD user. :-)
It depends on old-config, so poor mechanism. newconfig already
implimented best match probe/attach.
And a very useful mechanism
BTW, there are many fundamental design flaws in new-bus, so I don't
think new-bus is comparable with newconfig, yet, even if priority
probe is implemented. For example:
I'm not going to reply to these points as I suspect it will lead to a
pointless flame thread. I would prefer to discuss
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
Message -
From: Noriyuki Soda s...@sra.co.jp
To: curr...@freebsd.org
Cc: s...@sra.co.jp
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c
NOTE: Please Cc: s...@sra.co.jp, I am not subscribing this mailing
list, because I am a NetBSD user. :-)
It depends
: 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
In message 003001be9c88$2669b620$d3e4b...@xyplex.com, Rick Whitesel writes
:
Hi:
Since newconfig appears technically superior, what are the issues that
are hindering its acceptance?
That we want to have no config at all.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
From: Poul-Henning Kamp p...@critter.freebsd.dk
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:17:49 +0200
Message-ID: 5598.926522...@critter.freebsd.dk
phk In message 003001be9c88$2669b620$d3e4b...@xyplex.com, Rick Whitesel
writes
phk :
phk Hi:
phk Since
phk Since newconfig appears technically superior, what are the issues
that
phk are hindering its acceptance?
phk
phk That we want to have no config at all.
That is too short an answer.
No, it is complete and to the point.
What is the definition of config?
config(8)
Why do you
From: Poul-Henning Kamp p...@critter.freebsd.dk
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:45:45 +0200
Message-ID: 5756.926523...@critter.freebsd.dk
phk
phk phk Since newconfig appears technically superior, what are the
issues that
phk phk are hindering its
On Wed, 12 May 1999 17:45:45 +0200,
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@critter.freebsd.dk said:
What is the definition of config?
config(8)
Why do you want to remove it?
Why should we, as a 3rd millenium OS need a static config tool ?
For example,
- To specify the drivers which is
NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp writes:
mechanism was unacceptable -- else we would have used it years ago.
It is not formal core decision.
On whose authority do you say that? Garrett is a core team member.
Our policy in all areas has been that we'd rather do the Right Thing
My personal opinion is that static configuration is a subset of dynamic
configuration.
The eventual aim is to have a kernel which is a very sparse skelaton,
with very few services and drivers loaded (in fact possibly none).
At boot time, the needed drivers and services are loaded and configured
Dag-Erling Smorgrav once wrote:
As an outside observer, who does not understand most (all?) of the
differences involved, I must say, this will have to be an unfairly
uphill explanation. Because, using the style exemplified by PHK today,
the newconfig people could say something like:
On Wed, 12 May 1999 12:12:54 -0700 (PDT),
Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com said:
The eventual aim is to have a kernel which is a very sparse skelaton,
with very few services and drivers loaded (in fact possibly none).
This is also aim of newconfig, although console driver should be
Mikhail Teterin m...@aldan.algebra.com says:
:
: Perhaps, the newbus vs. newconfig discussion can be summarized to both
: sides' satisfaction offline and then presented to the rest of the world?
But didn't this already happen. I seem to recall a round of discussions
that went on a week before
In message 199905122048.qaa72...@misha.cisco.com, Mikhail Teterin writes:
Or, the core team may just say: Because we said so (which I think was
already done once) and stop discussing this...
We did I think.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
p...@freebsd.org
I agree that this is better way to solve the conflicts between new-bus
and newconfig. Although I wondered why FreeBSD's core decide to choose
new-bus before Usenix.
We didn't choose it before USENIX as if it were somehow part of the
objective to get this feature in before a public event, it
NOTE: Please Cc: s...@sra.co.jp, I am not subscribing this mailing
list, because I am a NetBSD user. :-)
It depends on old-config, so poor mechanism. newconfig already
implimented best match probe/attach.
And a very useful mechanism it is. Which is why I implemented priority
Noriyuki Soda wrote:
NOTE: Please Cc: s...@sra.co.jp, I am not subscribing this mailing
list, because I am a NetBSD user. :-)
Aha! Now a few things are starting to make sense...
It depends on old-config, so poor mechanism. newconfig already
implimented best match probe/attach.
Why should we, as a 3rd millenium OS need a static config tool ?
For example,
- To specify the drivers which is linked statically to kernel.
As I said earlier, you cannot link console driver dynamically,
If you do this, you cannot get error message when dynamic
linking of the
According to Mike Smith:
This is actually a major defect in the newconfig design; if the kernel
doesn't already know about a device when it is built, it can never
support it.
That would be so lovely, with a DEVFS too:
Plug your Cool card into your pcmcia slot, and get the message on
the sytem
Mike Smith once wrote:
For a usable dynamic architecture, loadable modules need to be
compiled to support both UP and SMP architectures simultaneously. Thus
the locking primitives need to be conditionalised at _runtime_.
What about
kldload /modules/up/whatever.ko
and
Mikael Karpberg wrote:
According to Mike Smith:
This is actually a major defect in the newconfig design; if the kernel
doesn't already know about a device when it is built, it can never
support it.
That would be so lovely, with a DEVFS too:
Plug your Cool card into your pcmcia slot,
Mike Smith once wrote:
For a usable dynamic architecture, loadable modules need to be
compiled to support both UP and SMP architectures simultaneously. Thus
the locking primitives need to be conditionalised at _runtime_.
What about
kldload /modules/up/whatever.ko
and
On Wed, 12 May 1999 14:53:31 -0700,
Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com said:
I agree that this is better way to solve the conflicts between new-bus
and newconfig. Although I wondered why FreeBSD's core decide to choose
new-bus before Usenix.
We didn't choose it before USENIX
On Wed, 12 May 1999 15:09:05 -0700, Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au said:
It would appear that you don't understand the problem, as no
configuration technique can telepathically determine in advance which
new drivers you are going to load.
Apparently you misunderstand newconfig. :-)
There is
On Wed, 12 May 1999 15:09:05 -0700, Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au said:
It would appear that you don't understand the problem, as no
configuration technique can telepathically determine in advance which
new drivers you are going to load.
Apparently you misunderstand newconfig. :-)
It is actually true that FreeBSD becomes Linux.
Comments like this will only ensure that you wind up in kill files,
mine included. They add nothing to the discussion.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
It seems Mike Smith wrote:
It is actually true that FreeBSD becomes Linux.
This is a childish troll, especially coming from you. If for no other
reason, this is an excellent reason _not_ to be working with your team.
Oh boy...
Could we end this now please ??
We've made our decision,
It is actually true that FreeBSD becomes Linux.
Comments like this will only ensure that you wind up in kill files,
mine included. They add nothing to the discussion.
I see, sorry.
--
soda
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of
ok,
here is a reason for all this...
It has benn a common thought among the FreeBSD people I have spoken too
(and that's nearly all of the main developers, INCLUDING bill Jolitz)
that with cheaper RAM and better organosed busses teh way to go is
towards removing all static devoce information from
NetBSD people have not the same stated aim of completely eliminating
config, so for them it made more sense to migrate to config.new.
I think it's also safe to say that because of NetBSD's interest in
supporting 'older' hardware, it would be suicide to use a truly dynamic
scheme since much of
NetBSD people have not the same stated aim of completely eliminating
config, so for them it made more sense to migrate to config.new.
I think it's also safe to say that because of NetBSD's interest in
supporting 'older' hardware, it would be suicide to use a truly dynamic
scheme since
On Thu, 13 May 1999 08:17:52 +0900 (JST), Noriyuki Soda s...@sra.co.jp said:
Have you ever asked to newconfig people?
No, no one of core members who takes charge of kernel part contacted
to newconfig people, ever.
It's your responsibility to communicate with us, not the other way
around. The
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
It is actually true that FreeBSD becomes Linux.
It is truely unfortunate that it comes to this..
however it has always been to me a source of great frustration to me that
Linus was able to implement a driver framework that allows a very dynamic
This doesn't answer my wondering. The core members can safely postpone
the decision after Usenix, because all of core members must know that
both new-bus people and newconfig people will come to Freenix track.
I'm not sure this was adequate reason to postpone the decision either,
and like I
Mikael Karpberg wrote:
That would be so lovely, with a DEVFS too:
Plug your Cool card into your pcmcia slot, and get the message on
the sytem console that an unknown pcmcia card called Cool, made
by CoolMakers, Inc. Damn... not even a generic driver wanted this card.
Pull the card out
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
This option should automatically select the appropriate sources
which is compiled into kernel, according to the source is needed
only in UP case, or only in SMP case, or both. This is what
oldconfig and newconfig does.
This is, again,
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Noriyuki Soda wrote:
This doesn't answer my wondering. The core members can safely postpone
the decision after Usenix, because all of core members must know that
both new-bus people and newconfig people will come to Freenix track.
Who is the chair of Freeunix track ? :-)
I have to comment on this, it's too outrageous. Several times in the
past, folks have written in and asked, if they wrote some particular
piece of software, would it get committed. They said that it was a
large undertaking, and that they wouldn't undertake it, unless there was
general
On Wed, 12 May 1999, David Schwartz wrote:
I have to comment on this, it's too outrageous. Several times in the
past, folks have written in and asked, if they wrote some particular
piece of software, would it get committed. They said that it was a
large undertaking, and that they
Because if it's a day of coding, you should just do it. If it's a 3
month project, you don't waste such time, and you should communicate it.
The time factor is judged by folks who code for a living, and maybe it's
a little high, but not too bad. I haven't seen this rule misapplied,
but
On whose authority do you say that? Garrett is a core team member.
I heard from Asami-san, Any voting not yet for new-bus. After
that, new-bus patch merge is decided. new-bus merge is core
decision, but drop static configration, ... these are not yet voted.
Then explain to us why newbus is
In message 199905120901.saa04...@srapc288.sra.co.jp Noriyuki Soda writes:
: This reminds me another ugly kluge in sys/pccard/i82365.h:
: #define PCIC_INDEX_00x3E0
: #define PCIC_INDEX_1(PCIC_INDEX_0 + 2)
: This is the way what some clever FreeBSD people saids right to
:
In message 199905122048.qaa72...@misha.cisco.com Mikhail Teterin writes:
: Perhaps, the newbus vs. newconfig discussion can be summarized to both
: sides' satisfaction offline and then presented to the rest of the world?
It is my impression that the language barrier has made this discussion
On Tue, 11 May 1999, NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa wrote:
I was thinking of doing this, the same as alpm and intpm:
case 0xdevid:
#if NUHCI 0
return NULL;
#else
return VIA blah USB controller;
#endif
It depends on old-config, so poor mechanism. newconfig already
implimented
Doug Rabson wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 1999, NAKAGAWA Yoshihisa wrote:
I was thinking of doing this, the same as alpm and intpm:
case 0xdevid:
#if NUHCI 0
return NULL;
#else
return VIA blah USB controller;
#endif
It depends on old-config, so poor mechanism.
For the sake of the thread, this got committed a day or two ago, and these
hacks have been replaced with a low priority match.
Why do you use another mechanism of 4.4BSD ? Don't loss time and
loss inter-operability between other BSDs.
--
NAKAGAWA, Yoshihisa
y-nak...@nwsl.mesh.ad.jp
Because 4.4BSD got it wrong. It has always been the belief of the
FreeBSD Project's management that 4.4's totally-static configuration
No! 4.4BSD mechanism is good. Newconfig already support dynamic
configuration and *good* module support (not yet merge newconfig CVS).
mechanism was
I was thinking of doing this, the same as alpm and intpm:
case 0xdevid:
#if NUHCI 0
return NULL;
#else
return VIA blah USB controller;
#endif
It depends on old-config, so poor mechanism. newconfig already
implimented best match probe/attach.
--
NAKAGAWA, Yoshihisa
71 matches
Mail list logo
