From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264079AbTICSFV (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:05:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264115AbTICSFU (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:05:20 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:61967 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264079AbTICSFD (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:05:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:49:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: James Clark cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Driver Model 2 Proposal - Linux Kernel Performance v Usability In-Reply-To: <200309031850.14925.jimwclark@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James, You missed a key point, the kernel people do not give a damn about binary modules and think they are evil. They do not care if a binary module works at all. If they can break it they will. You are wasting time and electrons, or just pee'ng in the wind. The only solution is to created a GPL pre-loading module with all the GPL_ONLY needed extentions re-exported or externed as to bypass the horse sh*t. What I am shocked to see is how people are being nice to you and not blasting you with a carpet bomb attack. I guess they are waiting to line up on me. Cheers, Andre On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, James Clark wrote: > Following my initial post yesterday please find attached my proposal for a > binary 'plugin' interface: > > This is not an attempt to have a Microkernel, or any move away from GNU/OSS > software. I believe that sometimes the ultimate goals of stability and > portability get lost in the debate on OSS and desire to allow anyone to > contribute. It is worth remembering that for every Kernel hacker there must > be 1000's of plain users. I believe this proposal would lead to better > software and more people using it. > > Proposal > ----------- > 1. Implement binary kernel 'plugin' interface > 2. Over time remove most existing kernel 'drivers' to use new interface - This > is NOT a Microkernel. > 3. Design 'plugin' interface to be extensible as possible and then rarely > remove support from interface. Extending interface is fine but should be done > in a considered way to avoid interface bloat. Suggest interface supports > dependant 'plugins' > 4. Allow 'plugins' to be bypassed at boot - perhaps a minimal 'known good' > list > 5. Ultimately, even FS 'plugins' could be created although IPL would be > required to load these. > 6. Code for Kernel, Interface and 'plugins' would still be GPL. This would not > prevent the 'tainted' system idea. > > Expected Outcomes > ------------------------ > > 1. Make Linux easier to use > 2. The ability to replace even very core Kernel components without a restart. > 3. Allow faulty 'plugins' to be fixed/replaced in isolation. No other system > impact. > 4. 'Plugins' could create their own interfaces as load time. This would remove > the need to pre-populate /dev. > 5. Remove need for joe soap user to often recompile Kernel. > 6. Remove link between specific module versions and Kernel versions. > 7. Reduce need for major Kernel releases. Allow effort to concentrate on > improving Kernel not maintaining ever increasing Kernel source that includes > support for the 'Kitchen Sink' > 8. Make core Kernel more stable. Less releases and less changes mean less > bugs. It would be easy to identify offending 'plugin' by simply starting up > the Kernel with it disabled. > 9. Remove need for modules to be maintained in sync with each Kernel thus > freeing 'module' developers to add improved features or work on new projects. > > 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/ >