Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263820AbTIBVr5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 17:47:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263754AbTIBVr5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 17:47:57 -0400 Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com ([62.253.162.41]:51091 "EHLO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263765AbTIBVpq (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2003 17:45:46 -0400 From: James Clark Reply-To: jimwclark@ntlworld.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Driver Model Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:44:55 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Patrick Mochel References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309022244.55500.jimwclark@ntlworld.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2064 Lines: 50 Before I posted my original question I read Patrick's very helpful overview of the Driver Model (www.amc.com.au/lca/loopback/papers/ Patrick_Mochel/Patrick_Mochel.pdf). The reason I posed the question, as a newcomer to kernel development, moving from WIN32 DDK development (sorry!) to Linux is that I was very surprised by the module interface. Would a more rigid 'plugin' interface and the concequent move from mainly 'source' modules to binary 'plugins' (still with source-code available for all to see) mean that (a) Kernel was smaller (2) Had to be released/recompiled less (4) Was EVEN more stable and (4) 'plugins' were more portable across releases and easier to install ? I love Linux but this seems to be holding it back... James On Tuesday 02 Sep 2003 10:29 pm, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > 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. > > Not necessarily. A binary driver still needs to be compiled for a specific > version of a kernel. And, if it's not already working, the new driver > model definitely won't help. :) > > > 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. > > No, it will not reduce usage of modules. The driver model has nothing to > do with whether something is compiled as a module or not. > > > 3. Will the practice of deliberately breaking some binary only 'tainted' > > modules prevent take up of Linux. Isn't this taking things too far? > > This is a loaded question, but ultimately it's a vendor issue. Most people > do and will use vendor kernels. What they do with their kernel interfaces > and how well they support binary modules is their beef. > > > Pat - 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/