Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: Driver Model | From | Robert Love <> | Date | Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:08:03 -0400 |
| |
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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |