Re: A proposal - binary

Greg KH
2006-08-03T20:06:11Z

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:26:16PM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:14:21AM -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> >
> >>I would like to propose an interface for linking a GPL kernel,
> >>specifically, Linux, against binary blobs.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry, but we aren't lawyers here, we are programmers. Do you have a
> >patch that shows what you are trying to describe here? Care to post it?
> >
>
> <Posts kernel/module.c unmodified>

If you want to stick with the current kernel module interface, I don't
see why you even need to bring this up, there are no arguments about
that API being in constant flux :)

> >How does this differ with the way that the Xen developers are proposing?
> >Why haven't you worked with them to find a solution that everyone likes?
> >
>
> We want our backend to provide a greater degree of stability than a pure
> source level API as the Xen folks have proposed. We have tried to
> convince them that an ABI is in their best interest, but they are
> reluctant to commit to one or codesign one at this time.

Don't you feel it's a bit early to "commit" to anything yet when we
don't have a working implementation? Things change over time, and it's
one of the main reasons Linux is so successful.

> >And what about Rusty's proposal that is supposed to be the "middle
> >ground" between the two competing camps? How does this differ from
> >that? Why don't you like Rusty's proposal?
> >
>
> Who said that? Please smack them on the head with a broom. We are all
> actively working on implementing Rusty's paravirt-ops proposal. It
> makes the API vs ABI discussion moot, as it allow for both.

So everyone is still skirting the issue, oh great :)

> >Please, start posting code and work together with the other people that
> >are wanting to achive the same end goal as you are. That is what really
> >matters here.
> >
>
> We have already started upstreaming patches. Jeremy, Rusty and I have
> or will send out sets yesterday / today. We haven't been vocal on LKML,
> as we'd just be adding noise. We are working with Rusty and the Xen
> developers, and you can see our patchset here:
>
> http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/paravirt/?cl=tip
>
> And follow our development discussions here:
>
> http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/virtualization/

I really don't want to follow the discussion unless necessary. I trust
Chris and Rusty to do the right thing in this area...

thanks,

greg k-h