Re: de4x5.c patch against 2.1.117

Chris Wedgwood (chris@cybernet.co.nz)
Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:01:27 +1200


On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 07:45:58PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:

> Bad example. How about fpu emulation. After all, everyone has
> builtin FPU these days! So lets just drop FPU emulation completely
> and see how many people complain.

FPU emulation could be modularised (It is for other architectures, in
part anyhow), might get a bit hairy if the module loader uses fp
though.

I'm not against kernel-mode PnP - I just don't really see a need for
it when acceptable userspace solutions exist using using modules.

Either way, if its a CONFIG option, I can choose not to have it, and
you can choose to have it. Nobody looses then.

My arguments for a userspace solution are mainly that by putting it
in userspace, we can support newer, slightly different types of
hardware more easily (assuming they conform to the same driver
interface as an existing driver) and that we don't need to keep
tables of all the different cards types in the kernel (although,
arguable, this could be marked __init).

-cw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html