Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752553AbXBDUyd (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:54:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752555AbXBDUyc (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:54:32 -0500 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:33694 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752553AbXBDUyc (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:54:32 -0500 Message-ID: <45C64807.9030108@tmr.com> Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:54:31 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Engelhardt CC: David Hollis , Jeff Garzik , Trent Waddington , Dave Airlie , Roland Dreier , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Free Linux Driver Development! References: <20070130012904.GA9617@kroah.com> <20070130191020.GF20642@kroah.com> <45BFA087.6020905@garzik.org> <20070130214759.GA12477@kroah.com> <21d7e9970701301414s251b584mbee85ecd6909febf@mail.gmail.com> <3d57814d0701301424m67d22cdbg7afc0a1dab29c152@mail.gmail.com> <45BFC99A.8040805@garzik.org> <1170250461.12914.33.camel@dhollis-lnx.sunera.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2124 Lines: 40 Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jan 31 2007 08:34, David Hollis wrote: >> Conversely, I've seen many cases of drivers that are developed by the >> community, but kept out-of-kernel forever due to various reasons. Some >> of them are due to the code quality and the developers not accepting the >> feedback to get the drivers into shape to be 'kernel worthy', sometimes >> it seems to be a lack of interest from the developers to merge upstream. >> Maybe because they think they would lose control or something? > > Putting the "codingstyle" control aside, often it's because things look > too hackish. Take ipt_ROUTE as an example. It won't get included, since > the "proper" way to do it would be using MARK and iproute2. But many users > don't get that [no criticism here], because ipt_ROUTE is so much easier. > (Probably because iproute2 and other netlink-using tools, like tc, lack > thorough documentation.) > Doing it by MARK a tables and rules is an ugly method, and like anything with is spread over many places (the mangle table to MARK), then 'rules' and 'tables', spreading an action into many places increases the chances of getting parts out of sync and having the whole not work as intended. And the 'ip' man page defines everything in BNF, which was hot stuff when Algol-60 came out (1960) but which is only readable to people who use it frequently. The ipt_ROUTE allows putting all parts of of the action, from defining the set of matching packets to specifying the desired result, the routing. And if that changes, it need only change in one place. Making good administration difficult because it fits some pedantic metal model is NOT a good way to decide which features to offer in a kernel. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - 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/