[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:48:12 EST, Mathieu Desnoyers said:

> This specific one is a kernel policy matter, and I personally don't
> have a strong opinion about it. I agree that you raise a good counter
> argument : it can be useful to proprietary modules users to be able to
> extract tracing information from those modules to argue with their
> vendors that their driver/hardware is broken (a tracer is _very_ useful
> in that kind of situation).

Amen, brother. Been there, done that, got the tshirt (not on Linux, but
other operating systems).

> However, it is also useful to proprieraty
> module writers who can benefit from the merged kernel/modules traces.
> Do we want to give them this ability ?

The proprietary module writer has the *source* for the kernel and their module.
There's no way you can prevent the proprietary module writers from using this
feature as long as you allow other module writers to use it.

> It would surely help writing
> better proprieraty kernel modules.

The biggest complaint against proprietary modules is that they make it
impossible for *us* to debug. And you want to argue *against* a feature that
would allow them to develop better code that causes less crashes, and therefor
less people *asking* for us to debug it?

Remember - when a user tries a Linux box with a proprietary module, and the
experience sucks because the module sucks, they will walk away thinking
"Linux sucks", not "That module sucks".

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-24 06:29    [W:0.089 / U:1.764 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site