| |||||||||||||
Wakelocks and the embedded problemWakelocks and the embedded problemPosted Feb 11, 2009 16:20 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)Parent article: Wakelocks and the embedded problem
Perhaps unsurprisingly, LWN articles on this subject tend to come to the point of view that embedded developers should adjust to fit the kernel developers' model. Perhaps the kernel developers would be able to move towards the embedded developers to some extent without compromising their own positions though?
Just going from the example above (and I realise that this may already be happening without my knowing), the main problem seems to be the interfaces, not the code. So if the embedded developers were able to discuss the interfaces with the relevant kernel developers on private mailing lists, to get an idea of what was likely to wash and what not then everyone would be much further on, even without the embedded people releasing their code.
Of course, once they did get to the stage of releasing code, there would still be the long integration process, but a lot of the heat would be taken off by the fact that the interfaces were likely to get through without too much discussion. The embedded people would be able to ship without the integration being complete, but safe in the knowledge that at some point their stuff would run on a generic kernel, with all the resulting benefits, as long as they showed a reasonable amount of good will.
(Log in to post comments)
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 11, 2009 16:38 UTC (Wed) by droundy (subscriber, #4559) [Link]
I imagine the problem with this idea is that usually interfaces are trickier than implementations, and it's very hard to know if an interface is "right" without also having a decent implementation. e.g. presumably the problem with pm_qos that made it inadequate for android's needs probably wasn't obvious when that code was reviewed (and is still not clear to me).
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 11, 2009 18:19 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
They could still explain though, why the existing interfaces did not suit them and what they proposed to/were in the process of creating instead. That would at least give some valuable feedback as to how likely the changes are to get in. The embedded people do create implementations. Even that limited feedback as they went along might make everyone's life easier.
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 11, 2009 21:13 UTC (Wed) by gouyou (subscriber, #30290) [Link]
> if the embedded developers were able to discuss the interfaces with the
> relevant kernel developers on private mailing lists
Yeah, like most of them would be interested to have discussion like that under NDA, helping for-profit companies produce better products ...
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 11, 2009 21:45 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
I am supposing of course that they think the embedded people will contribute interesting code in the long run. If they don't think that then this is moot anyway :)
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 11, 2009 22:00 UTC (Wed) by gouyou (subscriber, #30290) [Link]
But even if they contribute interesting code, most kernel developer do not work on Linux only for glory, they get paid to do it. I'm not sure company like RedHat, Novell, IBM or Oracle would be terribly happy to have their people spend time reviewing embedded API.
(For the top empoyer you can take a look here: http://lwn.net/Articles/312074/)
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 12, 2009 0:10 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
most kernel developers will respond to private e-mails about new developments.
there isn't a list for this, in part because there are so many kernel developers that such a list would hardly be limited.
the kernel folks have included drivers for hardware that's not shipping yet.
so, the kernel developers have shown that they are willing to work with embedded developers, but they can't be proactive about it because they don't have any way of knowing that they need to contact someone. the embedded developers know they are working on something, and can easily find out who to contact for advice. for the most part they don't choose to do so.
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 12, 2009 3:03 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]
The private mailing list thing seems like it would be problematic. Are you thinking of a single private mailing list, or one for each embeded developer?
If it is just a single mailing list, then the developer's competitors will likely also be on the list, which they might consider just as bad as a public list.
If it is separate lists, that is a lot of effort for the kernel developers. Also, what should they do if two embedded developers propose interfaces that achieve similar or identical aims? Do they break confidentiality and try to get the two to cooperate, or do they have to pretend that they don't know about the other use case?
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:04 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
Actually I was thinking that the embedded developers would not be on the list at all, but CCed when appropriate. And if handled delicately, they might even welcome a limited co-ordination with competitors on kernel interfaces - those are likely not to be the most valuable "IP" which they wish to keep to their breast for all times. If the kernel developers thought that the resulting contributions were likely to be of sufficient value (to themselves or their employers :) ) they could even play intermediaries without actually dropping names. This "if" is of course the hinging point for everything I have posted up until now.
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 12, 2009 9:53 UTC (Thu) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]
You're also assuming that no kernel developer (for lack of more specification) are competition, something which cannot possibly be true. If you think this through, the list might as well be public, and then you might as well use linux-kernel or a more appropriate subsystem list.
Wakelocks and the embedded problem Posted Feb 12, 2009 12:09 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Google had all of this code in a public git repository long before they shipped anything running it, so absence of discussion before now isn't down to wanting to keep it secret.
|
|||||||||||||