
|
[openbeosstorage]
||
[Date Prev]
[06-2003 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[06-2003 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[openbeosstorage] Re: DiskDevice API v2.4 remarks
- From: "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosstorage@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:33:38 +0200 CEST
On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 09:07:10 -0700 Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
[...]
> > * Would watching disk systems make sense? We'll probably have to do
> > that in the kernel anyway, so it would take little to implement it.
>
> Sure, why not. Something like this okay?:
>
> B_DEVICE_REQUEST_DISK_SYSTEM = 0x0100, // disk system addition/
> removal
>
> B_DEVICE_DISK_SYSTEM_ADDED, // disk system added
> B_DEVICE_DISK_SYSTEM_REMOVED, // disk system removed
Yes, looks perfect.
> > * BDiskDevice::CommitModifications(): I know, I know, I proposed
> > it,
> > but I don't think the template message is that good an idea. It
> > would
> > mean passing a flattened version of it to the kernel and then
> > further
> > to the registrar (if we indeed implement delivery of kernel
> > notification messages there). For rather little benefit, I believe.
>
> :-) Fine by me if we get rid of it.
Cool.
> > * BPartition::VisitEachDescendent(): My dictionary tells me it
> > should
> > read VisitEachDescendant. :-)
>
> Yeah, I guess you're right. I have the hardest time with those
> words...
> :-)
No need to tell a non-native speaker. English is just a weird language.
;-)
I'm afraid virtually every natural language is, though. :-)
CU, Ingo
|

|