On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Antti Kantee <po...@cs.hut.fi> wrote: > On Tue Apr 13 2010 at 13:25:24 +0000, Andrew Doran wrote: >> So the result of our teeth-pulling so far is: >> >> 1. You are concerned about namespace conflicts. I am too. >> 2. I would be happy to see these managed through documentation and >> a straightforward approval process for adding modules. > > There is an additional pitfall with this. We don't control all modules > and cannot be sure potential 3rd parties use the same processes. > >> 3. You suggest that it would be better for the computer to manage it. > > Maybe not manage it, but at least detect it and fail gracefully. > >> Can you suggest an alternative mechanism that will (a) allow us to >> autoload things that are not anointed device drivers and (b) satisfy >> your concerns? > > devfs ;) > > IOW, Given that we don't know where we most likely are in 6 months, > I'm not too keen on trying to spend energy to solve this right now ... > >> As an example of something that wants autoloading both as a file >> system and a driver, see ZFS. > > ... if zfs is the only use case, since IIUC it's broken anyway. > > Meanwhile, if there is something else which is catastrophically broken > due to lack of holy christening, we can revisit this and see if just > flipping the switch and maybe writing a simple audit script to verify > no collisions is the path of least wailing (this would be close to "2").
I like module names to become longer and unambiguous by making them match the relative paths in src/sys, like "sys/ufs/ffs/ffs.kmod". I don't think of any reason why module (driver, filesystem, ...) names need to be very short. Masao
