Re: [Re: Linux headed for disaster?] -- I don't think so.

Stefan Monnier (monnier+lists/linux/kernel/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu)
05 Dec 1999 19:32:24 -0500


>>>>> "Kendall" == Kendall Bennett <KendallB@scitechsoft.com> writes:
> One thing that everyone seems to be confusing here is that
> binary portable modules == proprietry close source drivers

Think about it some more: if you have the source code for it,
why would you bother with the trouble of providing binary
compatibility ?
Just replace

cp foomodule.bin /lib/modules/<vers>/misc
with
modcompile foomodule.src; cp foomodule.bin /lib/modules/<vers>/misc

That's it.
Now, is that easier than designing a API and keeping it up-to-date and
dealing with backward compatibility and with compatibility issues between
different compilation options, ... ?

Sure binary compatibility is not evil in itself, but unless you have
a closed code driver, the benefits are really very slim so they'd better
come at "no cost" or close enough.
If you can solve all those problems and provide binary compatibility
with no noticeable performance penalty and no maintainability problem,
I'm sure you can get Linus to use it. But don't expect him to work on
such an insignificant "problem" when much more productive work can
be done in plenty of other areas.

Stefan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/