> >>>>> "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 ?
Because you'd rather improve the internals of your driver than spend all
your time tracking kernel changes? Whenever this argument breaks out, I
read between the lines a plea to exchange the steady rain of changes for a
kind of punctuated evolution.
"I want a defined, stable driver API" != "I want the driver interface cast
in stone forever". You gather up ideas that require incompatible changes,
and from time to time release a new API version and indicate that "all
block API 1.2 code will be removed in the next stable release" or
something like that. That announcement is the wakeup call for driver
maintainers everywhere to concentrate on the interface for awhile, and the
new API document tells them where they should be looking for problems in
their code. It should make planning easier, no?
I do *not* want to engage in a firefight over this issue; I just wanted to
bring out a point that I don't recall seeing made explicit.
-- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu Please, no more software products offering a "richer experience"! I have indigestion of the brain already. Give me a more ascetic experience.
- 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/