[arc-discuss] Re: ARB rabbit holes (was: Requesting PSARC/2007/124 details)

[Dale Ghent]

On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:14 PM, James Carlson wrote:

> Those third parties are already on shaky ground in using a private
> interface, and making those interfaces public (if it were possible)
> would be a great thing to see, and a much bigger benefit than opening
> this case.
>
> At best, this gives some detail behind the decision, but I hope those
> third parties are *not* treating the ARC documentation as
> authoritative or as any sort of implication of stability.  They're
> still in the same place they were before when they had to grovel
> through header files and opaque bits delivered in patches.

Well, here's the paradox we have arrived at (speaking about the VFS/ 
vnode stuff):

It has been established that:

   1) The VFS/vnode interfaces are described as "non-public" and  
unfit for external-to-ON consumption
   2) "Source code is not documentation"
   3) (Paraphrasing yourself) "ARC documents are not documentation"

While it is generally accepted that:

   1) Third party file systems for Solaris are both common and  
established thingys.

So what's the deal here? What's the avenue for discussion on this  
specific topic? You can Kevin started talking about consolidations  
and C-Teams and... geez, who knows what ever else is involved.... but  
the simple fact is that I wouldn't know what a "C-Team" or whatever  
is even if it took me out to dinner. I don't know the history as to  
why VFS specifically has been kept non-public, but I'd like to both  
find out why, and change it if possible.

The second edition of Solaris Internals does a fine job at  
documenting VFS/vnode. Call that public documentation for lack of a  
better word. Obviously, it is now out of date as of 2007/124 putback.  
Bummer.

/dale