| |||||||||||||
kernel API - a little bit less bias, pleasekernel API - a little bit less bias, pleasePosted May 19, 2006 8:05 UTC (Fri) by wilck (subscriber, #29844)In reply to: kernel API - a little bit less bias, please by hazelsct Parent article: The Novell Partner Linux Driver Process
I am not saying that in-tree drivers are generally "bad", just that goes too far to demand that everything must be in-tree. I expect Novell's driver process to simplify the "mess" I was talking about considerably.
What I propose is: to realize that a stable or at least predictable API (on the source code level) is not such a bad thing as some people claim it to be.
Btw, in-tree drivers are no guarantee against #if's, you just don't see them anymore. Some drivers maintained by vendors are kept portable between kernels in their private development version, and the #if's necessary for portability that are just stripped before merging the driver into the kernel tree.
If a vendor wants to keep full-featured drivers for different upstream and vendor kernel series, #if's are hard to avoid. The alternative "vanilla + patches" approach of DKMS may be more sympathetic to the in-tree camp, but it is neither easier to handle nor easier to understand.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||