Re: [PATCH gnumach] Use c_string for dev_name_t in the device subsystem.

[Sergey Bugaev]

Hi Flavio,

could you please explain what the difference / the advantage of
new_dev_name_t is over dev_name_t? (Preferably, put it into the commit
message too.)

Isn't c_string same as MACH_MSG_TYPE_STRING_C? What are we gaining?

What is your overall plan concerning string handling in RPCs? The two
things I'd like to see improved in string handling are:

* drop static upper bounds (I already ranted about this in a
  response to one of your patches, and you said you agree...)
* avoid memcpying strings into the message body (maybe unless
  they're very short), and instead transmit them out of line / by VM
  copy; and avoid *reserving* lots of space (4096, or 128 bytes like
  here) for the string in the message body either

Is this a step towards any of these goals? If not, when we do figure
out the proper out-of-line dyn-sized strings, won't we have to
introduce new_new_dev_name_t and device_open_new_new_request etc?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here.

Sergey