Re: RFC: virtualbox tainting.
From: Valdis . Kletnieks
Date: Fri Oct 07 2011 - 12:24:12 EST
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:16:13 EDT, Josh Boyer said:
> In all seriousness, is there a reason these modules haven't been
> submitted to the staging tree? Perhaps this was attempted in the past
> and I'm just not finding references to it.
I haven't actually checked what the churn rate of the kernel side of VirtualBox is, but
there *is* some benefit if you have a package that includes both userspace and kernel
code, to keep them in sync.
Currently, VirtualBox is at 4.1.4. Now, if they decide they need to change/fix/extend
the API for some reason, they can just ship a 4.1.6 and be happy. If the code is
in-tree, then they are basically stuck with the API - they can't ship a 4.1.6 that can
get away with assuming that all the kernel API is there. So you have to carry around
workarounds and test-for-features code and all that stuff.
I don't know - maybe the Oracle crew think the API is stable enough now that they can
afford to do that. But Frank would probably be the one to speak to how in/out of tree
would affect their development/support methodology.
Description: PGP signature