Re: A Layered Kernel: Proposal
From: Grigor Gatchev (grigor_at_zadnik.org)
Date: 02/29/04
- Previous message: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz: "Re: Worrisome IDE PIO transfers..."
- In reply to: Christer Weinigel: "Re: A Layered Kernel: Proposal"
- Next in thread: Grigor Gatchev: "Re: A Layered Kernel: Proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:48:46 +0200 (EET) To: Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se>
On 29 Feb 2004, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> Grigor Gatchev <grigor@zadnik.org> writes:
>
> > > In the linux kernel I think that one of the most important things I've
> > > learned from it: middle layers are usually wrong. Instead of hiding a
> > > device driver behind a middle layer, expose the low level device
> > > driver, but give it a library of common functions to build upon. That
> > > way the driver is in control all the time and can use all the neat
> > > features of the hardware if it wants to, but for all the common tasks
> > > that have to be done, hand them over to the library.
> >
> > By principle, the "least common denominator" type container layers are
> > bad, because of not being extendable; you are completely right here. A
> > class-like driver object model seems better to me. And the class-like
> > model is not the only one that is nicely extendable.
>
> > You seem to be knowledgeable on the topic - what driver object model
> > would you suggest for a driver layer model?
>
> Thanks for the confidence, bur I really don't know, it's much easier
> to criticize someone elses design than to come up with a good one
> myself. :-)
Okay. I will try (hope I'll have the time for all!) to outline the major
driver layer models, with simple lists of advantages and disadvantages,
and to present it as a base for further discussion. (Please keep in mind
that this outline will certainly be not the best ever to exist - maybe a
lot of people around will be able to make it much better. But, anyway,
they will be given the full opportunity to criticize and improve. :-)
> With that said, I think that they way the Linux kernel is moving
> regarding to IDE/SCSI devices is a good idea. Linux has been around
> for a while now and the Linux people have tried lots of things that
> turned out not to be such a good idea after all. Many things are
> still there in the kernel, but if it's important enough, it gets
> cleaned up after a while.
If you mean the abandoning of the SCSI emulation, I couldn't agree more.
Though I haven't digged into the code of this driver group, the move seems
only logical from design viewpoint.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz: "Re: Worrisome IDE PIO transfers..."
- In reply to: Christer Weinigel: "Re: A Layered Kernel: Proposal"
- Next in thread: Grigor Gatchev: "Re: A Layered Kernel: Proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
