lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Driver Model
From
Date
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 17:44, James Clark wrote:

> Would a more rigid 'plugin' interface and the concequent move from mainly
> 'source' modules to binary 'plugins' (still with source-code available for
> all to see) mean that (a) Kernel was smaller (2) Had to be
> released/recompiled less (4) Was EVEN more stable and (4) 'plugins' were more
> portable across releases and easier to install ?

I do not think any of these implications are true, except (4).

A stable driver API would certainly imply (4). But I see no relation to
(a) -- actually, an API would bring complications and thus bloat, if
anything. I see no relation to (2). And (3) just seems like a wild
guess.

I agree that (4) would be a good thing. The problem is, its really not
what we have here today and not what any of the kernel developers want.
95% of the drivers (and 100% of those that the kernel developers use)
_are_ source-based and in the tree, so why have a stable API for them?

In other words, yes, (4) is nice. But not that nice, as a stable API
and driver interface implies a lot of other things that are not
necessarily good.

On the bright side, I do think that we will see a much more stable API
in 2.6. 2.4.n for n after Marcelo took over has also been stable.

Robert Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.040 / U:1.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site