From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266648AbUG0WPQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:15:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266660AbUG0WPQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:15:16 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([216.238.38.203]:12812 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266648AbUG0WPJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:15:09 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: Bill Davidsen Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:18:05 -0400 Organization: TMR Associates, Inc Message-ID: References: <20040723155045.19770.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1090966177 18931 192.168.12.100 (27 Jul 2004 22:09:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20040723155045.19770.qmail@web52906.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org szonyi calin wrote: > --- Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit : > On > Fri, 23 Jul 2004, [iso-8859-1] szonyi calin wrote: > >>>And with new devepment model this expenses will be passed to >> >>the >> >>>end user when the kernel will not be stable enough and will >>> crash. Do you you remember the 8k vs 4k stack problem for >>>Nvidia binary kernel module ? >> >>You want a stable kernel, but you also want to rely on >>binary-only kernel >>modules? >> > > > No. I wasn't clear on that one. My example was wrong. AFAIK the > 8k/4k stack kernel problem were causing problems for other > people too. > > >>The Linux kernel people cannot guarantee stability with >>binary-only kernel >>modules. And the Linux kernel people cannot solve that >>problem... >> > > > I underestand that. > However hpa told me that the stability of the 2.6 kernel will > not suffer. And akpm posted that he intended to remove cryptoloop, while others are calling for the end to devfs. Not having features disappear is part of stable, I would think, not just "not oops more often." -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me