> >> `subj` is my 2.3 wish. Having pcmcia support outside of standard
> >> kernel makes pcmcia drivers second-class citizens, which only work
> >> sometimes.
>
> As an aside, I'd question the assertion that having PCMCIA outside the
> kernel causes it to "only work sometimes". I'm not aware of any major
> PCMCIA problems that have been caused by kernel version skew, and all
> such minor problems have been quickly fixed. I don't think PCMCIA has
> had more such problems than other types of drivers that *are* in the
> kernel: when there have been major changes in kernel interfaces, it
> has not been uncommon for drivers to break.
Well: when someone does big changes to kernel (like turning way
wait-queues are declared), he/she tends to fix all places in linux
kernel. He/she certainly will break few drivers. Problem with pcmcia
drivers is that all of them are allways broken this little way. Is
pcmcia package distributed in form of patches?
> > However, I'm not going to just use the pcmcia code as-is, as David Hinds
> > has never been very excited about putting the support in the kernel.
> > And I do believe that for the old-style pcmcia stuff the current
> > approach is the right one anyway due to the ugly details. But if
> > somebody were to start up a cardbus driver system, I wouldn't be unhappy...
>
> I think this is the first time I've ever heard you express interest in
> kernel support for dynamically configured devices. I'm somewhat
> unhappy that it sounds like you're encouraging someone else to do it
> differently.
mj@ucw.cz + jj@ucw.cz want to do complete rewrite of buses for 2.3,
and one of their goals is make dynamically configured devices
available.
> consideration for me. I'm not dead-set against putting PCMCIA in the
> kernel, and anyone who felt strongly enough about it is free to just
> do it, though I'd prefer them to do it in a way that would make it
> easy to propagate updates from my tree to the kernel tree.
Currently, PCMCIA is licensed using MPL. Would it be possible to
release pcmcia package under _both_ MPL and GPL in future to make
in-kernel integration easier? [pretty please] [I'm not a lawyer so I
do not know if it would be legal to integrate MPL sources into kernel
tree. And I do not think Linus would like MPL sources in kernel
tree...]
Pavel
-- I'm really pavel@ucw.cz. Look at http://195.113.31.123/~pavel. Pavel Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!- 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.tux.org/lkml/