[openbeosnetteam] Re: Progress report
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:28:00 CET (+0100)
> David wrote:
> > Philippe, no offense, but I actually want to rip out all sorts of
> > code and reorganise what we have anyways! Given this your code is
> > very useful but I can't help thinking that a totally new clean
> > codebase will be cool and should allow us to have a best possible
> > implementation.
> I would vote +1 for a code reorganisation too.
Me too, and for a reworked naming scheme (proper prefixes, init/
shutdown calls: right now, we have destroy, delete, shutdown,
whatever).
> Well, the R5.x devfs don't let you choose where to put the device
> drivers, as
> he looks for device drivers in these places only:
A "rescan" finds all drivers, not only those symlinked in .../drivers/
dev.
But you're right. I am not sure though, if there are any restrictions
on modules.
And we will have only two drivers, the socket driver, and the
networking card driver.
> We could move all *support* functions into a support module, that all
> modules (core, interfaces, protocols) will use (get_module()).
>
> Kernel modules are like kernel DLLs, except... they're not really :-)
> get_module() / put_module() do reference count, so no multiple
> loads...
>
> pools, mbuf, misc, timers, queues would be better in one network
> support
> module.
I disagree here - mbuf, and pools are quite usable for others, too. I
would just make different modules for them. We could also consider
reworking the timer to don't have those net_ prefixes and put it in
another module.
Adios...
Axel.
Other related posts:
