On 12/07/2013, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote: [Ted Unangst wrote:] > >> But the existing code shouldn't go anywhere until there is a >> replacement, and I don't think there are any yet. So fixes to the >> existing code would be welcome. > > Concur. But it won't get enabled, even with bug fixes.
This makes sense in the context of Ted's comments earlier that the netbt implementation isn't a good enough design, that it's "too network heavy." > > Making it better requires a bigger effort. However, ones you get part > way along the line you might see "oh, lower level abstration good". > If you get to that point, and make the next steps forward, you'll be a > hero. > Thanks. I've received several helpful comments and contributions from others who are interested in this, but I appreciate the broad delineation of what experienced OpenBSD developers view as an acceptable standard for kernel device driver subsystem code. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll continue to study the USB code Ted recommends as a good model.
