Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <4478F767.5090403@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton writes:
>
>> At first glance I don't see anything wrong with that logic. My one request
>> is that you add a branch that says, "if legacy behavior is requested by
>> , add it to the mix."

>
> Legacy behaviour is exactly what we need to avoid to get the
> device locking sorted out, so this would be rather poisonous
> to the entire effort.


Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the mechanism for making it happen has
to be the same, just that having the same end result would be very useful.

Doug

--

This .signature sanitized for your protection

_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"