Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:18:18 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: Driver Model 2 Proposal - Linux Kernel Performance v Usability |
| |
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 06:53:01PM +0100, James Clark wrote: > Following my initial post yesterday please find attached my proposal for a > binary 'plugin' interface: > > This is not an attempt to have a Microkernel, or any move away from GNU/OSS > software. I believe that sometimes the ultimate goals of stability and > portability get lost in the debate on OSS and desire to allow anyone to > contribute. It is worth remembering that for every Kernel hacker there must > be 1000's of plain users. I believe this proposal would lead to better > software and more people using it. > > Proposal > ----------- > 1. Implement binary kernel 'plugin' interface
And this interface will look like what? What is wrong with the current kernel API interface?
> 2. Over time remove most existing kernel 'drivers' to use new interface - This > is NOT a Microkernel.
"remove"???
> 3. Design 'plugin' interface to be extensible as possible and then rarely > remove support from interface. Extending interface is fine but should be done > in a considered way to avoid interface bloat. Suggest interface supports > dependant 'plugins' > 4. Allow 'plugins' to be bypassed at boot - perhaps a minimal 'known good' > list > 5. Ultimately, even FS 'plugins' could be created although IPL would be > required to load these. > 6. Code for Kernel, Interface and 'plugins' would still be GPL. This would not > prevent the 'tainted' system idea.
So "drivers" are a third class citizen? They don't need to be under the GPL for some reason?
> Expected Outcomes > ------------------------ > > 1. Make Linux easier to use
How would this help this? The kernel would get bigger somehow, right?
> 2. The ability to replace even very core Kernel components without a restart.
We can do that today with modules.
> 3. Allow faulty 'plugins' to be fixed/replaced in isolation. No other system > impact.
How are you going to isolate parts of the kernel from itself?
> 4. 'Plugins' could create their own interfaces as load time. This would remove > the need to pre-populate /dev.
What?
Ok, I'm just giving up now.
But remember, patches are always welcome. Please post your code to implement this system if you come up with some.
Good luck,
greg k-h - 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/
| |