Draft opinion review for PSARC 2008/097 sosd: SCSI Object-based Storage Device driver

[Joseph Kowalski]

Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Mark Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Garrett D'Amore <gdamore at sun.com 
>> <mailto:gdamore at sun.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I'm not sure you really need to call out the public DDI interfaces
>>     used by the project.  Apart from the weird line breaks in the
>>     e-mail, the opinion looks good to me.
>>
>>
>> Garrett,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> RE: line breaks -- probably my fault.  I copy/pasted from notepad on 
>> a Windows box.
>>
>> Is there any harm in leaving those interface definitions in?  I can 
>> certainly remove that whole "Imported Interfaces" table, but I'm 
>> (privately) debating the value of and feasibility of a project that 
>> might be able to scrape some of that information out of the entire 
>> public caselog.  In this case, that's very detailed import 
>> information that may get lost.  Or perhaps scrapping the published 
>> caselog documentation has no value and automated tools to check the 
>> actual code/binaries would be of more value anyway.
>
> There's no harm, that I can see, but little value either.  Since the 
> API is public, we'd never be able to remove or change it anyway, 
> because we couldn't find all consumers.
>
> In fact, we can't find such consumers anyway via case logs, since the 
> normal practice is not to declare public Committed APIs that are 
> imported.
>
>    -- Garrett

The short answer is "its your choice" - no harm, no foul.

- jek3