[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: A Layered Kernel: Proposal

    On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Mike Fedyk wrote:

    > Grigor Gatchev wrote:
    > > Here it is. Get your axe ready! :-)
    > >
    > > ---
    > >
    > > Driver Model Types: A Short Description.
    > >
    > > (Note: This is NOT a complete description of a layer,
    > > according to the kernel layered model I dared to offer. It
    > > concerns only the hardware drivers in a kernel.)
    > >
    > Looks like you're going to need to get a little deeper to keep it from
    > being OT on this list.
    > What is the driver designs of say, solaris, OS/2, Win32 (NT & 9x trees)
    > and how are they good and how are they bad?
    > What specific (think API changes, nothing generalized here *at all*)
    > changes could benefit linux, and why and how? Nobody will listen to
    > hand waving, so you need a tight case for each change.
    > HTH,
    > Mike

    Dear Mike,

    An year ago, I was teaching a course on UNIX security. After the
    first hour, a student - military man with experience of commanding PC-DOS
    users - interrupted me: "What is all that mumbo-jumbo about? Users,
    groups, permissions - all this is empty words, noise! Don't you at least
    classify your terminal, and issue orders on who uses it? Man, either talk
    some real stuff, or I am not wasting anymore my time on you!"

    Of course, I was happy to let him "stop wasting his time on me".

    Reading some of the posts here, I get this deja vu. I know the driver
    designs of some OS, and don't know others. I may waste a month or two of
    work, and post a huge description of all big OS driver models that I
    know, or waste an year of work, and give you a description of all big OS
    driver models. Will this give you anything more than what was already
    posted? Wouldn't you read my hundreds of pages, then try to summarise all,
    and eventually come to the same?

    Or you will try to pick this from one model, that from another, and end up
    assembling a creature with eagle wings, dinosaur teeth, anthelope legs and
    shark fins, and wondering why it can neither fly nor run nor swim really
    well, why it has bad performance? This can't be, I must have misunderstood

    Also, does "think API changes, nothing generalised *at all*" mean anything
    different from "think code, no design *at all*"? If this is some practical
    joke, it is not funny. (I can't believe that a kernel programmer will not
    know why design is needed, where is its place in the production of a
    software, and how it should and how it should not be done.)

    OK. Let's try explain it once more:

    While coding, think coding. While designing, think designing. Design comes
    before coding; otherwise you design while coding, and produce a mess.
    Enough of such an experience, and you start believing that design without
    coding is empty words, noise. Hand waving.

    What I gave is more than enough to start designing a good driver model.
    After the design is OKed, details of implementation, eg. API changes, may
    be developed. Developing them now, however, is the wrong time, for the
    reasons explained just above. Let's not put the cart ahead of the horse.

    Or I am wrong?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.022 / U:66.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site