Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752366Ab2BZOYI (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:24:08 -0500 Received: from esgaroth.petrovitsch.at ([78.47.184.11]:1395 "EHLO esgaroth.petrovitsch.priv.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561Ab2BZOYF (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:24:05 -0500 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 unknown-host q1QENfvr015817 Subject: Re: Can we move device drivers into user-space? From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: Henrik Rydberg Cc: Richard Yao , Bobby Powers , "Ted Ts'o" , Greg KH , Guenter Roeck , Jidong Xiao , Kernel development list Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:23:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20120224191535.GA4505@polaris.bitmath.org> <20120224192643.GB24120@kroah.com> <20120224201027.GA4859@polaris.bitmath.org> <20120224201655.GA5994@kroah.com> <20120224203715.GA4995@polaris.bitmath.org> <20120224205651.GA13333@kroah.com> <20120224212238.GA5178@polaris.bitmath.org> <20120224213027.GB15735@thunk.org> <20120224221459.GA5254@polaris.bitmath.org> <20120226104701.GA18152@polaris.bitmath.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3 (3.0.3-1.fc15) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1330266224.616.48.camel@thorin> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-DCC--Metrics: esgaroth.petrovitsch.priv.at; whitelist Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1937 Lines: 45 On Son, 2012-02-26 at 07:26 -0500, Richard Yao wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote: [...] > > changed, is unimportant. Maybe code, like so many other things, > > arranges itself in a scale-free critical fashion, which would forever "Code arranges" not itself, but people arrange code the best they see fit. > > warrant a monolithic approach. Maybe it would even make sense to have And the Linux kernel is BTW not really that monolitic in the spirit of the definition of Tanenbaums book. It's just the category that sucks the least there. > > userspace join the same tree as well. There is however a frofoundly > > political aspect here, which cannot be expressed in terms of > > code. Also, in practise, breaking things down into manageable chunks > > is usually a good idea in the end. Yes, everybody learns that in the first lecture on programming. Please sent patches to make actually things better and not just talk. Thank you. > I do not see what prevents an in-kernel context switch into a ring 3 > context with a different process address space. Is it necessary to > remove the code from the kernel tree before someone can do this? No, and that's the real problem here: Everybody who might think it's a good idea may please implement - and thus propose - something concrete, try it out and comeback with experience and performance numbers - and not just try to come up with some theory and other misleading points (what political aspect?!) and ideas what others should do and why it might be better. Bernd -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at LUGA : http://www.luga.at -- 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/