Darren Reed wrote: > On 18/09/09 10:44 AM, James Carlson wrote: >> Darren Reed wrote: >>> As an unsigned integer for all values, except -1, or as a signed integer? >>> >> >> I still think it's properly "neither." Users can't reasonably do >> anything with those ephemeral numbers, so printing them (or using them >> in user interfaces) would be a mistake. >> > > Do a "man snoop" and search for the word "zone".
My argument wasn't that there were zero bugs in the OS. That keyword seems to me to be pretty clearly a defect in snoop. (And apparently a recent one; less than a year old.) It was that the zone IDs are inherently ephemeral, and were designed to be that way. They're not intended as any sort of administrative interface. The kernel assigns them arbitrarily as the zones are booting, and there's no guarantee at all that any particular number represents any zone over time. At best, they're useful in undocumented or volatile debug interfaces (such as in mdb). It's the zone names that are fixed and are intended as administrative interfaces. And that since you can't do any reasonable arithmetic comparisons between them (what does it mean for one zone ID to be "less" than another?), it doesn't really matter what a zoneid_t is inside. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carls...@workingcode.com> _______________________________________________ zones-discuss mailing list email@example.com