Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Look, your implementation was slow, confusing, invasive, inflexible
> *and* buggy.
My patch was meant as demonstration, you reduce it to a single aspect -
the module - driver interface.
The patch was intended to demonstrate more. First of all, how to fix the
module mess without breaking everything. It demonstrated a way to
introduce a new interface without breaking compability. The new driver
interface on top of it was optional, it could also have been the old
interface or your monster refs.
> I seriously question your taste in this matter. You obviously hold a
> personal dislike for my code. Fine.
Doing to the linking in the kernel is just plain wrong. Most of the module
code could perfectly live in user space and it could be as simple as your
kernel loader.
> > maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't fix anything
>
> Then you don't understand the problem.
Maybe you could explain, what problems it fixes, that justifies complete
breakage?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:32 EST