Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261245AbTIBSoT (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:44:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261271AbTIBSoT (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:44:19 -0400 Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com ([62.253.162.47]:58507 "EHLO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261245AbTIBSoS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:44:18 -0400 From: James Clark Reply-To: jimwclark@ntlworld.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Driver Model Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 19:43:15 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309021943.15875.jimwclark@ntlworld.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 688 Lines: 16 1. Will the move to a more uniform driver model in 2.6 increase the chances of a given binary driver working with a 2.6+ kernel. 2. Will the new model reduce the use/need for kernel modules. Would this be a good thing if functionality could be implemented in a driver instead of a module. 3. Will the practice of deliberately breaking some binary only 'tainted' modules prevent take up of Linux. Isn't this taking things too far? 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/