Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 05 Dec 1999 16:12:25 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Portable binary drivers (was Re: Linux headed for disaster?) |
| |
Kendall Bennett wrote: > There have been discussions in recent months about why Linux does not > support binary portable drivers, such that binary drivers from one > Linux kernel version will work with future Linux kernel versions > without needing to be re-compiled.
> Every single problem that has been mentioned as reasons not to > implment Binary Portable modules for the Linux kernel is solvable. In > fact there are *lots* of incredibly sound reasons for why the Linux > kernel should be re-worked to support binary loadable modules that > are portable between kernel versions, *even* for Open Source drivers, > some of which are:
Supporting portable binary modules adds a lot of work, and slows down your driver. If you strongly believe in your case: show us the code.
I am confident that a solution to support binary loadable modules will be accepted by Linus and Alan -- if it does not add overhead to the kernel.
Further, I don't think you'll get very far arguing against open source device drivers.
You imply it is bad that the current nature of the kernel practically forces vendors to open source their drivers. Most of us believe just the opposite... open sourcing the driver means that you can fix problems that the vendor can't or won't take care of in a reasonable amount of time. It means a volunteer can update the driver for a new kernel version, without having to wait for the vendor.
There are so many reasons why we should strongly encourage open source drivers.
-- Jeff Garzik | Just once, I wish we would encounter Building 1024 | an alien menace that wasn't immune to MandrakeSoft, Inc. | bullets. -- The Brigadier, "Dr. Who"
- 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/
| |