From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <53cc24ebc17c87a8cf7f472733964a89@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri,  9 Sep 2005 11:31:06 -0400
From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] hacking issue: memory resizing
In-Reply-To: <4321A7E3.1040106@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 85e2d110-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Ron's reply sums it up nicely and caught me in mid-composition
in a similar vein, although I was using a lot of ALL CAPS to make
some points.

--jim

On Fri Sep  9 11:21:02 EDT 2005, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
> erik quanstrom wrote:
> 
> > for a toehold on the problem, it looks like the cardbus
> > code (/sys/boot/pc/devpccard.c:828) and the functions
> > upamalloc() and upafree() in memory.c allow some kernel-level 
> > dynamic memory. (although upafree() doesn't do anything.)
> > 
> 
> My impression in general is that the device stuff in Plan 9 is not 
> terribly dynamic -- not surprising, given the time in which the code was 
>   written.
> 
> It would be cool if devices could be as dynamic as file systems.
> 
> Not an issue in my world, but it's getting to be very important in the 
> rest of the world, where hotplug is the order of the day, even including 
> hotplug CPUs and memory at this point. PCMCIA -- that's old news :-)
> 
> Anyway, I hope some smart people out there will take this as a challenge 
> in the kernel space and start thinking about it. Plan 9 is not as 
> advanced, as some other OSes, in the area of dynamic device management.
> 
> ron