| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 01:53:06 +0200 From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl> To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> CC: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, perex@...ex.cz Subject: Re: Moving sound/* to drivers/ ? On 22-05-08 01:37, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Speaking as a former OSS driver maintainer, I always preferred > drivers/sound. > > Though Rene's suggestion (use both sound/ and drivers/sound/) might make > sense if the subsystem code is huge -- I supported the drivers/block/ -> > block/ code movement for example. Well, not _huge_ but ALSA is very much structured like that; large middle layer with "miniport" drivers (I do by the way expect this was also Takashi plan originally due to him using sound/* and not just "sound/"; that is, I took the * to be shorthand for isa, pci, usb and so on) From a structural view, the PCM core is just as much not a driver as the IP protocol isn't one and moving all of sound/ to drivers/ would trade the current "why are the drivers not under drivers/?" issue for a "why is all this non-driver code under drivers/?". This "net model" of sound/ and drivers/sound/ would be cleanest I feel. Rene. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists