[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage?
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:38 PM, HoP <> wrote:
> Hi folks.
> I need to warn you that my mail is a bit little longer then I would like
> to be.But I'm not able to ask my question without some
> background information.
> On June 19th, I was sending the driver to the Linux-media
> mailing list. Original announcement is there:
> One would say that the code describes very well what it does = adds
> virtual DVB device. To be more clear on it I have even done some
> small picture:
> I was hoping to get any feedback regarding code implementation.
> It was my first code for the kernel and I felt very well that some
> part can be done better or even simpler.
> What really surprised me badly was that when I read all 54 responses
> I have counted only two real technical answers!!! All rest were about
> POLITICAL issues - code was NACKed w/o any technical discussion.
> Because of fear of possible abusing of driver.
> I didn't know that there existed very big movement against such
> code in dvb-core subsystem before.
> I have one big problem with it. I can even imagine that some "bad guys"
> could abuse virtual driver to use it for distribution close-source drivers
> in the binary blobs. But is it that - worrying about bad boys abusing -
> the sufficient reason for such aggressive NACK which I did? Then would
> be better to remove loadable module API fully from kernel. Is it the right way?
> Please confirm me that worrying about abusive act is enough to NACK
> particular driver. Then I may be definitely understand I'm doing something
> wrong and will stay (with such enemy driver) out of tree.
> I can't understand that because I see very similar drivers in kernel for ages
> (nbd, or even more similar is usbip) and seems they don't hamper to anybody.
> I would like to note that I don't want to start any flame-war, so very short
> answer would be enough for me.
> Regards
> Honza
> PS: Please be so kind and CC the answer/comment to me, I'm
> only on linux-media ML, not on linux-kernel ML. Thanks.
> BTW, if accidentally, somebody find it interesting and would like to
> help me doing code review, there is the code hosted now:


I, for one, would love to see your virtual DVB device driver hosted in
a repository for the purposes of experimentation and additional
development. I can think of many, many good uses for such a virtual
device driver. Unfortunately, however, all the device vendors also
have uses for it. It a guarunteed fact that if a driver like that got
merged into the kernel, any software company that previously sponsored
open-source kernel development would opt instead for closed source
userspace drivers that depend on a virtual DVB device.

Please don't let that discourage you -- I think you should continue
your work on this virtual DVB device driver, and I'd love to play with
it myself, and possibly even contribute to it. ...but I will never
support the merging of this into the kernel.

I do not nack the existence of the driver -- I love the idea, and I
encourage more development. I only nack it's merging into any
open-source linux kernel.

Please accept my answer with the greatest intentions for furthering
the development of the open-source community. My opinion is only for
the best intentions of continued contributions from companies such as
Hauppauge and any others that have contributed thus far to v4l/dvb.

Please, keep up the work. I repeat -- I would love to play with your work.

Best regards,

Mike Krufky

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-30 22:55    [W:0.178 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site