Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux and real device drivers | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 21 Sep 1999 22:15:34 +0200 |
| |
>>>>> "Bret" == Bret Indrelee <breti@bit3.com> writes:
Bret> Jes Sorensen asserts: >> Yes, UDI also guarantees you a trendous overhead and almost >> certainly lousy performance - last time I looked at the spec, about >> a year ago, it certainly wasn't pretty.
Bret> If this isn't just a case of you spreading FUD, could you please Bret> give some data to back up your claims?
Bret> To my knowledge, no one has run benchmarks against the current Bret> UDI definition. The original prototype was a little bit slower, Bret> but performance changes were made to minimize or eliminate these Bret> areas.
Again, the last version of UDI I looked at was 0.80. Anyway, UDI means going through indirect functions to simply read/write a device register since you have no idea how a device is mapped in a certain type of machine or operating system .... this alone should be enough to prove my point.
Jes
- 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/
| |