On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 04:41:25PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:36:37AM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Well, doesn't this result in the same issue as the fixed table? > > In other words, the developer has to supply the "suggested byte" for > > fsid and make sure that it doesn't conflict with other "suggested byte" > > values or suffer the same consequence as forgetting to update the fixed > > table. (ie. It just puts the fixed value in a different place, from what > > I see, for in-tree modules. Also, with a fixed table, they are all in > > one place, so it's easy to choose a non-colliding value?) > The reason for my proposal was Pawel note that a porter of the filesystem > should be aware of some place in kern/ where to register, besides writing > the module. Well, he has to be aware, but we should do all we can to minimize the number of place he needs to update, as it is easy to forget some. I agree with Rick that what you proposed is similar to fixed table of file system names and I'd prefer to avoid that. If we can have name-based hash that produces no collision for in-tree file systems and know current 3rd party file systems plus collision detection for the future then it is good enough, IMHO. And this is what Rick proposed with his patch. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:17 UTC