| 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: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:34:02 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jaswinder@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ip2: use request_firmware() O> This separation certainly does not make things _easier_ for users, our > reason for existence. This separation certainly does not make it easier > to drop in a driver with a firmware, i.e. not easier on driver > developers. It is one more PITA detail when copying a driver from one > kernel to another, or shipping the driver out of tree. Users run distributions. The user picture is "I installed it, it worked". > There are good reasons why the Makefile rules, Kconfig rules, C source > code and headers for a driver all live together... moving the firmware But they don't. Half the headers are in include/, random bits of glue are scattered around the scripts dir. > I like the goal, but see little effort in the area of "make this > transition painless for users." I think we need to think about "for the technically competent and distro builders". I don't see any connection between the choice of firmware source directory and users at all. They typed make, magic occurred. Alan -- 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