lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Discourage Uniform Driver Model
Date

> How does your proposal differ/improve on the demand-load module system?

Modules must be (re)compiled for each specific kernel release. This is because
of the very tight coupling with the kernel. The kernel changes so much that
it is often necessary to amend a module to keep up. My suggestion is to
create an abstract interface between the two. The interface (called a binary
interface) would define the way the two 'talk' to one another. Once the
interface has been released as v1.0 any module could be made compatible with
the v1.0 interface. After a while it would be necessary to release improved
interfaces. This would not break the existing modules as the old interface
could remain due to its abstract nature. This technique is used in everything
from Windows drivers, Netscape pluggins and even normal programs - image
saying you must buy a new version of Word Perfect for every minor release of
the OS - it has 'binary' compatibility. Unfortunately many see this as active
encouragement of 'binary only' modules which have no source code. This idea
would cost in performance. I suggest this loss is worthwhile to resolve
compatibility and usability.

> This seemed to work well in Mandrake, or am I missing the point?!?

Unless you build the module yourself you are the mercy of Mandrake to make
each module - I don't see this as being much different from the situation
with Windows. Poor old Mandrake must remake almost every module almost
everytime. You cannot use a module from Redhat's kernel. In effect everyone
is duplicating effort. Modules must currently be compiled, this requires a
degree of expertise and can be daunting to someone who just wants to use the
OS. My suggestion would not remove need to release modules in source form,
but once compiled they could be plugged into any kernel and distributed in
binary+source form.

> Also, the only reply to your posting that I read (and I've only read a
> fraction of them!) which offered any genuine usefulness was the point
> that if you offer the code then they'll consider the merits. Are you
> considering an actual solution, or just suggesting a policy change?

I understand the way competitor binary interfaces work. Currently I'm not
going to roll up my sleeves and write this system. I don't have the technical
expertise to design such a thing and although I could learn the curve at this
time is too steep. I do think that my experience with similar competitor
systems allows me to speak on the subject. However, I feel that pushing for
this change is a positive thing. It has started a debate on 'misusing' the
GPL to prevent binary only modules and has resulted in some positive
comments. If they debate it rationally and then decide not to bother I will
have achieved a lot. I do feel qualified to make this (obvious) suggestion
and comment on the design of any resulting interface.

James

-
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:0.269 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site