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, 18 Nov 2010 08:53:22 -0800 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@...eros.com> To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...el.com>, Charles Marker <Charles.Marker@...eros.com>, Jouni Malinen <Jouni.Malinen@...eros.com>, Kevin Hayes <kevin@...eros.com>, Zhifeng Cai <zhifeng.cai@...eros.com>, Don Breslin <Don.Breslin@...eros.com>, Doug Dahlby <Doug.Dahlby@...eros.com>, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk> Subject: Re: Challenges with doing hardware bring up with Linux first On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:46:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Can Linux help in any way? What if we used staging for a common driver >> architecture for different OSes? Most of those staging drivers already >> have some sort of OS agnostic cruft, why not try to help hardware >> vendors by providing them with a common OS agnostic solution they can >> share? Is this not out turf? If its not, are we perfectly OK in being >> second citizens so long as the driver eventually gets done on proper >> upstream Linux ? I'm not OK with it and hence my e-mail. I'm looking >> for ideas and thoughts on this. Please no trolls, would really just >> like some constructive discussions on this. As I see it maybe we can >> move some of this OS agnostic crap into staging, and then use spatch >> to write tools to de-unwrap crap to Linux specific stuff and help >> maintain it. What this does is it moves OS agnostic crap out as a >> community effort to help aid proper development and porting for Linux. >> Since we'd maintain the crap / scripts / de-wrappers, we'd likely be >> able to get drivers quicker and can have a framework to help companies >> who still [1] need to support other Operating Systems. > > No, staging is for gettingn code into, or out of, the kernel tree, not > for anything else. > > I have allowed it to be used to hold drivers in that are not > "acceptable", while another driver was written by others from scratch to > work properly on that hardware, and then the original one is dropped. > That's ok, as there is a time-limit on how long the code lives in the > staging tree. > > But to try to use it to create a multi-os solution, no, that's not what > staging is for. OK thanks! > Also, please review the past multi-os driver initiatives that have > sprung up over the years (about 1 every 10 years it seems). Please > learn from the past as to why those have failed every single time, and > why we don't want to even try to do that again. :-) thanks, just testing waters to see what's possible and what direction to focus more on. Luis -- 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