Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Binary drivers | From | Timothy Writer <> | Date | 05 Dec 1999 19:51:54 -0500 |
| |
"Kendall Bennett" <KendallB@scitechsoft.com> writes:
> > And, yes, there will be obvious performance hits in some cases, > > but thats exactly WHY Linus and Alan don't support binary drivers > > now. If they do that, the kernel API's get frozen and they lose the > > ability to innovate. > > Wrong. You will only get a performance hit *if* there has been a > change to the internal kernel API's that necessitate a compatibility > layer to be implemented so the old drivers can still be used. This > doesn't mean that a performance hit is necessary for all drivers.
I don't think so. Implementing a binary compatible API usually requires a level of indirection that makes optimizations like inlining impossible.
> This is what developed OS'es in the real world is all about. Every > commercial OS on the planet does things this way because that is the > only way to guarantee reliability down the track. Alan can complain > about the stability of Windows 9x being attributed to binary drivers, > but the same argument does not hold true for Windows NT, OS/2, > Solaris, Netware, QNX, BeOS, MacOS or any other commercial OS. Fact > is they all use binary device drivers, and many of them are a lot > more stable than Linux is.
.... and a _lot_ slower on the same hardware.
-- tim writer <tim@starnix.com> starnix inc. tollfree: 1-87-pro-linux brampton, ontario, canada http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |