Re: Driver Model

[James Clark <jimwclark@ntlworld.com>]

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