Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hans Verkuil wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No No Optional question: Why: i don't have a vote as i'm only a user and not a developer but i thought i would just make one point as far as i can see, the v4l-dvb tree exists to create support for a particular class of hardware within the linux kernel the separate tree is very useful to lots of people (i include myself in that) - but it is a byproduct of the development methodology so if you think this group's mission is to provide support for distributions then you should vote no and if you think this group's mission is to provide support for the linux kernel then you should vote yes Thanks, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hans Verkuil wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No No Optional question: Why: i don't have a vote as i'm only a user and not a developer Users *especially* have a vote. This poll is among others meant to get a feeling for how important people think the backwards compat is. I think it is of limited importance, but I've no way of knowing that for certain unless I get feedback. So I invite anyone, developer or user, to give their opinion! And it's not a case of 'most votes count'. It's not that type of a poll. It's really a survey. (Hmm, that would have been a better name for this anyway. So sue me :-) ). Regards, Hans but i thought i would just make one point as far as i can see, the v4l-dvb tree exists to create support for a particular class of hardware within the linux kernel the separate tree is very useful to lots of people (i include myself in that) - but it is a byproduct of the development methodology so if you think this group's mission is to provide support for distributions then you should vote no and if you think this group's mission is to provide support for the linux kernel then you should vote yes Thanks, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No YES. Optional question: Why: I assume that the main goal should be development of linux v4l/dvb drivers to be included in *new* kernel versions. These dont need compat code. But beside of the main goal there are requirements and other goals - simplify development and save time (skip) - keep code as easy as possible (skip) - having as many testers as needed (don't skip or choose kernel version suitable) - support of linux users who aren't able to update (either dont skip or provide backports in regular intervals. still easier to implement) looking at this it will hurt only users from embedded hardwrae, but at least a bunch of them cannot compile modules anyway. Might be solved by (i.e. yearly) backports. Would be also interesting which kernel versions are used by list members. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Yes. Optional question: Why: Most distros offer the lastest kernels. I had requests for old kernels, but these ones were very old (2.6.10!). -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No YES (but I would go even further) Optional question: Why: The aim should be to bring improvements to the released Linux kernel. The *only* point relevant for both development and testing is the current latest development kernel, currently 2.6.29-rc6. So I would go further : development should be moved to git and support for all previous kernels should be dropped allowing concentration of development resources on making patches which will be applied to the head of the git tree. I think it is completely wrong-headed to have v4l-dvb as a thing which can be installed on top of old kernels to add new driver support to old kernels. It is a waste of time to create such a thing, and a drain on resources to support. As for users/testers, the message should be made crystal clear: if you want to try running bleeding-edge code to get the latest support your hardware the first thing to do is upgrade to the latest kernel. It will be easier to communicate with developers who are (or should be!) working on improving the latest development kernel. This is better for everyone : time wasted on backporting and talking about/debugging old kernel issues will be eliminated and drivers will released in the mainline kernels faster. It will also clarify to distros and users where the coal face is: new hardware support comes from new kernels, not v4l-dvb or (usually) backports or anything else. Fixes for bugs in last stable kernel (currently 2.6.28.7) should be pushed in if known, but never new features. Distros or those with special commercial reasons can work on backports if they really feel they can justify the use of their time, money and other resources. They are also the only ones who can properly take account of all the userland consequences of making a backport because they see the whole system. Regards, Hans -- Release early, release often. Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Yes. Why: I'm a v4l-user, I use my VDR for a couple of years now. These were the steps I took, before I assembled my box: - I have analog cable, so what hardware does exist, that is capable to record video on an old PC (even my desktop had only a 400MHz Celeron)? - Which of these pieces are supported by Linux? For me it ended up with a PVR150 and an DXR3, later replaced by a PVR350. I started with kernel 2.6.9, that time ivtv wasn't part of the kernel, it was even outside v4l-dvb (am I correct?). Without a large amount of help from the ivtv-lists and VDR forum, that would have been a disaster for me. I can't say how glad I was, when I read the news, that ivtv was integrated in the kernel. What I'm trying to say is: when you need support for hardware, you have to upgrade your kernel and there are many other people beside the main driver developer which can help you. In the hot time of integrating ivtv in the kernel, I back off asking Hans for supporting an older kernel, since all I wanted was a working driver. And if that means I have to upgrade the kernel, I just have to do it. I get paid for developing and maintaining some specialized desktop applications since ~15 years now (~200 users), and from that point of view, sometimes you have to drop support for older installations respectively have to upgrade those to some level, because it's just a pain. I can remember what a relief it was, to be able to drop support for Windows 98 and base my company's (rather complex and large) ERP-app on some real Windows (= 2000). (right now we're right in the middle of porting from Win32/C++ to .Net3.5/C#, guess who will make a jig when it's done...) Reading the diverse postings and from my point of knowledge and experience, I think it's best to swap the development model to an in kernel-tree, that feeds a compat-tree, which supports kernel-versions that are reasonable. And if someone has fun backporting (i2c-related) drivers below 2.6.22, than let him do it. But let the main developer do their work in keeping uptodate with new hardware and new kernels. They get old soon enough. (the kernel, not the developers...) ;-) Lars. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Yes (see below) Optional question: Why: I'm always for backwards compatibility in general. I have an out-of-tree standalone pvrusb2 driver which includes extra stuff that at least compiles correctly all the way back to 2.6.12 (extra - but old - i2c modules are also included with the driver for kernels of that vintage). However, that's just my one driver and I think trying to maintain that sort of (in)sanity over the entire v4l-dvb tree is going to be a major morale-sucking headache. I'm working right now on v4l2-subdev support and it's my intention that I will be ripping out all the old I2C adaptation stuff as part of this effort. (I am actually going to at least try to make the old stuff still work as a compile-time switch in the standalone pvrusb2 driver but I don't realistically expect that to remain practical with the driver as it currently resides in v4l-dvb.) So even if the decision is made to keep v4l-dvb as a whole compatible all the way back to 2.6.16, the pvrusb2 driver will still in the end have to be excluded in v4l-dvb builds for anything older than 2.6.22. I really can't vote no above with a straight face while doing this v4l2-subdev related work in the driver. -Mike -- Mike Isely isely @ pobox (dot) com PGP: 03 54 43 4D 75 E5 CC 92 71 16 01 E2 B5 F5 C1 E8 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Jean Delvare wrote: * Enterprise-class distributions (RHEL, SLED) are not the right target for the v4l-dvb repository, so we don't care which kernels these are running. I think you should be aware that the mythtv and ATrpms communities include a significant number of people who have chosen to use the CentOS_5 series in the hope of getting systems that do not need to be reinstalled every few months. I hope you won't disappoint them. John P -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Please reply to this poll if you haven't done so yet. I only count clear yes/no answers, so if you replied earlier to this in order to discuss a point then I haven't counted that. Currently it's 16 yes and 2 no votes, but I'd really like to see some more input. I want to post the final results on Sunday. Regards, Hans On Sunday 22 February 2009 11:15:01 you wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Optional question: Why: Thanks, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 11:15 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes YES _: No Optional question: Why: From what i see, i2c is causing trouble, also still in in 2.6.28. I prefer attention on that in stead of trying to get the old i2c working. I've seen a remark seemed to imply that the Mythtv community is using CentOS a lot. In my experience that is a minority in the mythtv group. -- Cheers, Rudy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
John Pilkington wrote: Jean Delvare wrote: * Enterprise-class distributions (RHEL, SLED) are not the right target for the v4l-dvb repository, so we don't care which kernels these are running. I think you should be aware that the mythtv and ATrpms communities include a significant number of people who have chosen to use the CentOS_5 series in the hope of getting systems that do not need to be reinstalled every few months. I hope you won't disappoint them. John P just had a quick look at mythtv-users there are a handful using centos -- simon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No NO. Optional question: Why: Dropping support for older kernels means dropping support for MOST testers. Sure, it's an inconvenience for the maintainers. This does *not* have to cause a hindrance for new drivers. At first, new drivers can be added to the repository, and set to require only the latest kernels, via versions.txt . When somebody has time to fix backwards compat for that driver, simply update versions.txt with the new kernel version dependency for the driver in question. Additionally, we all know what upstream kernel development is like -- new kernel does *not* mean new stability. More likely, new kernels bring new bugs. (this isnt always the case, but it's good to be skeptical when it comes to production systems) If I build an embedded system to use as a dedicated TV streaming box, I will not want to update my kernel JUST so that I can use the new driver required for my new TV tuner device. Being able to build the v4l-dvb development repository against a reasonable set of stable kernels, including kernels as old as 2.6.16, is a critical feature for users of the v4l-dvb driver repository. Regards, Mike Krufky -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hello all, My vote is YES, why haven't we done this already?? My understanding is that we are just drop old kernel support and retaining the vast majority of the drivers. If anyone tallied the total number CVE listed vulernabilites and other problems fixed since then they would probably be shocked. Unless for some reason your hardware is so old that it does support 2.6.28.7, this is the version you should run. Later, Jonathan Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl 2/24/2009 2:19 PM Please reply to this poll if you haven't done so yet. I only count clear yes/no answers, so if you replied earlier to this in order to discuss a point then I haven't counted that. Currently it's 16 yes and 2 no votes, but I'd really like to see some more input. I want to post the final results on Sunday. Regards, Hans On Sunday 22 February 2009 11:15:01 you wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Optional question: Why: Thanks, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 24.02.2009, 16:02 -0500 schrieb Michael Krufky: On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No NO. this is an unwanted reply to Hans' polling, but I also stated previously that I would leave it in the end to those who contributed and might further do so. So this polling, for me, only means that neither Hans nor Jean have to take care for how difficult backward compat would be for 2.6.22. Any common sense here? Optional question: Why: Dropping support for older kernels means dropping support for MOST testers. I seriously doubt this, I think I can count every single one reporting issues below 2.6.22 and 2.6.18 during the last year, but it does not even matter. Sure, it's an inconvenience for the maintainers. This does *not* have to cause a hindrance for new drivers. At first, new drivers can be added to the repository, and set to require only the latest kernels, via versions.txt . When somebody has time to fix backwards compat for that driver, simply update versions.txt with the new kernel version dependency for the driver in question. All agreed. Additionally, we all know what upstream kernel development is like -- new kernel does *not* mean new stability. More likely, new kernels bring new bugs. (this isnt always the case, but it's good to be skeptical when it comes to production systems) That is all true. But we start lacking testers on the recent rcx kernels and unfortunately this includes me after years ... If I build an embedded system to use as a dedicated TV streaming box, I will not want to update my kernel JUST so that I can use the new driver required for my new TV tuner device. Yes. Being able to build the v4l-dvb development repository against a reasonable set of stable kernels, including kernels as old as 2.6.16, is a critical feature for users of the v4l-dvb driver repository. It is at least fun for them and we are great in that :) Question is only, if Hans or Jean do to have to care for any of that below 2.6.22 and I say no. Or? Regards, Mike Krufky Cheers, Hermann -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hans Verkuil wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes Yes _: No Optional question: Why: Firstly let me state that I am not a v4l developer. I have been lurking on this list and its predecessor for about 3 years as I find low level hardware programming very interesting. The main concern for the no camp seemed to be support for EL5. I use EL 3, 4 and 5 for different purposes to this day, and I would like to add my viewpoint. I know the older releases have inferior hardware support compared to the newer ones, but to me this is not a problem, just a consideration when selecting the hardware I wish to use. If v4l stops supporting kernels 2.6.22 then it is not like EL5 based on 2.6.18 will instantly be useless. It just means that you will need to find a camera or dvr card that is already supported. I dont see that this is a problem, and think that this trade off is worth it so as to not complicate life for future development more than it needs to be. Ant -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Yes. Optional question: Why: The reasons already stated, those resources could be better used doing other things. Aside of that, of the devs/users how many people actually _need_ to remain on an old kernel. I could be wrong in my assumption that most people using old kernels are doing so simply by choice and not necessity. You want to maximize developer productivity and if that means some people will need to update their kernel, is that so horrible? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:15:01 +0100 Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No No. Optional question: Why: For a couple of reasons: 1) This will remove testers from our user database; 2) The current way of backporting is not scaling. Just dropping support for a random version is just postponing the question that we need to re-think about the way for backport; 3) This doesn't solve the development issues we have of not using -git. This causes lots of work when sending patches uptreaming, on when someone changes something upstream and a backport is needed. So, in practice, this won't solve any real problem. I'm right now working on another way of allowing backport that will better scale, and will allow developers to use -git, without losing backport for users. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hi Hans, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? X: Yes _: No Optional question: Why: The cost to preserve backwards compatibility for these old kernels is much too high compared to the remaining user-base. I can only repeat the points I have made in the past week: * Maintained distributions aimed at home users (Fedora, openSUSE) run kernels = 2.6.22 by now. * Enterprise-class distributions (RHEL, SLED) are not the right target for the v4l-dvb repository, so we don't care which kernels these are running. * Engineering time which is put into backwards compatibility would be better spent on improving the drivers upstream and adding support for new hardware faster. * v4l-dvb depends on subsystems which do evolve, and when these changes are too important (e.g. new i2c device driver binding model) backwards compatibility comes are an unbearable complexity and cost. That kind of cost sucks the time of current developers, might turn them into ex-developers when they realize they lost all the fun, and prevents new developers from joining the project because of the complexity of the compatibility layer. So let's just drop support for kernels 2.6.22 and focus on better supporting upstream and recent kernels. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Jean Delvare wrote: There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? Does this mean keep our current system and move the backward compatibility point to 2.6.22? Or not have any backward compatibilty at all? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hello Hans, On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:15:01 +0100 Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No No Optional question: Why: I know it's not easy task keep this support working... but we still have *users* around the world using kernel 2.6.22 (as some of them already reported this). Cheers, Douglas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No YES Optional question: Why can't we drop support for all but the latest kernel? Why: As others have already pointed out, it is a waste of time for developers who volunteer their time to work on supporting prior kernel revisions for use by enterprise distributions. The task of back-porting driver modifications to earlier kernels lessens the amount of time developers can focus on improving the quality and stability of new and existing drivers. Furthermore, it deters driver development since there an expectation that they will back-port their driver to earlier kernel versions. Finally, as a developer, I have have little interest in what was new yesterday. I usually run the latest kernel whenever possible and for a number of different reasons. Some of those reasons include better hardware support, bug detection, and stability testing. All services greatly valued by other kernel developers. Regards, David Ellingsworth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:26:57 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab mche...@infradead.org wrote: I'm right now working on another way of allowing backport that will better scale, and will allow developers to use -git, without losing backport for users. I have an incomplete skeleton for the backport scripts, available at: http://linuxtv.org/hg/~mchehab/backport For now, it is very dumb (it recompiles all drivers every time) and requires much more hacking to cleanup the Makefiles. The current version just removes a very simple check for linux version, but it is not hard to use this way for all cases where backport is needed. After having this working fine and supporting all backports, people can develop using -git as basis for development, without needing to take care of backport anymore. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Question regarding detail in dropping support for kernels 2.6.22 (related to Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22)
Hello Hans, Hans Verkuil schrieb: We still need to support kernels from 2.6.22 onwards. Although I think the minimum supported kernel is something that needs a regular sanity check, right now there are no technical reasons that I am aware of to go to something newer than 2.6.22. Whether we keep our current system or not is a separate discussion: whatever development system you choose there will be work involved in keeping up the backwards compatibility. Just out of deep interesst: Could you, Hans (or anyone else) just explain, what is / are the reason to draw the line between kernels 2.6.21 and 2.6.22? What was the fundamental change there and do these changes as such apply to every supported device / driver? As I understand you, although you drop backport efforts for kernels below 2.6.22, you are going to adopt an policy to - in a sense - waste development efforts / time on seven instead of 12 kernels? Wouldn't it then not be more logical to support only the recent kernel and the kernel before, becaus in some month time 2.6.30 might include a major change which would force you to drop support for 2.6.29 altogether? Thanks for your patience and reply, best regards, Tobias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Question regarding detail in dropping support for kernels 2.6.22 (related to Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22)
Hello Hans, Hans Verkuil schrieb: We still need to support kernels from 2.6.22 onwards. Although I think the minimum supported kernel is something that needs a regular sanity check, right now there are no technical reasons that I am aware of to go to something newer than 2.6.22. Whether we keep our current system or not is a separate discussion: whatever development system you choose there will be work involved in keeping up the backwards compatibility. Just out of deep interesst: Could you, Hans (or anyone else) just explain, what is / are the reason to draw the line between kernels 2.6.21 and 2.6.22? What was the fundamental change there and do these changes as such apply to every supported device / driver? As I understand you, although you drop backport efforts for kernels below 2.6.22, you are going to adopt an policy to - in a sense - waste development efforts / time on seven instead of 12 kernels? Wouldn't it then not be more logical to support only the recent kernel and the kernel before, becaus in some month time 2.6.30 might include a major change which would force you to drop support for 2.6.29 altogether? Thanks for your patience and reply, Hi Tobias, No problem, I'd be happy to explain. For a long time whenever you loaded an i2c module the kernel i2c core would probe all i2c adapters to see if a chip supported by the i2c module was present. This is very, very bad since the act of probing can corrupt eeproms and worse. In addition, since many i2c devices cannot be properly identified, you often get misdetections where the driver thinks it found a match, when in reality it was a different device altogether. In kernel 2.6.22 a new i2c API was created that allowed the adapter driver such as bttv or ivtv to tell the i2c core what i2c devices are on which address. So a driver that supported the new i2c API would prevent i2c modules from autoprobing its i2c adapters, and it has to explicitly tell the i2c code what device is where. It's a bit simplified since there are still some probing methods available, but in all cases it is the adapter driver that initiates them. This is a huge improvement and solves many problems that were previously unsolvable. But it is a totally different approach where the i2c module no longer initiates probes, but instead it is done by the adapter driver. However, it is a big task to convert drivers from the old to the new API. It requires modifying the i2c modules to support the new API, but as long as such modules are also still in use by unconverted adapter drivers they have to support the old API as well. And before you can convert an adapter driver *all* i2c modules it uses need to be converted to support the new API. In addition, since kernels older than 2.6.22 do not support the new API at all, we need to keep support for the old API around under #if KERNEL_VERSION as well. To make all this possible without creating i2c modules riddled with #if's I created two headers that hide most of this complexity. However, these headers are exposed in the upstream kernel where they look really weird when they are stripped from all #ifs. Now all this is fine as long as adapter drivers exist that are not yet converted, since that means we need to keep the compat stuff around anyway. But I'm now attempting to finally convert the last drivers, hopefully before the 2.6.30 merge window will close. Once that is done, the only reason left to keep the compat code around is to support pre-2.6.22 kernels. It's a lot of tricky code meant primarily to support the transition from the old to new i2c API. Now that we have almost finished this transition I think it is time to say goodbye to all the code needed to keep the old i2c API alive. And that means effectively dropping support for kernels older than 2.6.22. Of course, I might not be able to finish the conversion in time for 2.6.30, in which case the compat code needs to stay around for another kernel cycle. Luckily, such major API redesigns are rare. And normally the effort needed to keep compatibility is fairly limited and the additional test exposure is very welcome. So there are good reasons for having backwards compatibility. I didn't create the daily build system to verify that it still compiles on older kernels for nothing. But there are limits to the amount of effort that I am willing to spend on it. And in this case I think it's time to drop the compatibility with the old i2c API entirely. A long and technical story, but I hope it helps explain the background. Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, David Ellingsworth wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Optional question: Why can't we drop support for all but the latest kernel? Why: As others have already pointed out, it is a waste of time for developers who volunteer their time to work on supporting prior kernel revisions for use by enterprise distributions. The task of back-porting driver modifications to earlier kernels lessens the amount of time developers can focus on improving the quality and stability of new and existing drivers. Furthermore, it deters driver development since there an expectation that they will back-port their driver to earlier kernel versions. Finally, as a developer, I have We don't backport the drivers to older kernels. That's what drivers kept in a full kernel tree end up doing. Generally there is just the code for the newest kernel to think about. Most of the driver code doesn't have backward compatibility ifdefs. Most of the compat issues are handled transparently by compat.h and only those developers who patch compat.h ever need to know they exist. When a developer does need to deal with some compat ifdef in a driver, almost all the time it's something trivial and obvious. Change the variable name in both branches. Copy in a couple lines of boilerplate. Sometimes a bigger issue comes up. IIRC, around 2.6.16 there was a major class_device change in the kernel and backward compat code for it ended up being a nightmare. So we didn't do it. We stopped supporting back to ~2.6.11 and moved up the target past the problem change. Maybe this has happened again with the changes to i2c? I don't think it's that hard, but I've yet to do it myself, so maybe it is. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 06:04:48 Trent Piepho wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, David Ellingsworth wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl wrote: Optional question: Why can't we drop support for all but the latest kernel? Why: As others have already pointed out, it is a waste of time for developers who volunteer their time to work on supporting prior kernel revisions for use by enterprise distributions. The task of back-porting driver modifications to earlier kernels lessens the amount of time developers can focus on improving the quality and stability of new and existing drivers. Furthermore, it deters driver development since there an expectation that they will back-port their driver to earlier kernel versions. Finally, as a developer, I have We don't backport the drivers to older kernels. That's what drivers kept in a full kernel tree end up doing. Generally there is just the code for the newest kernel to think about. Most of the driver code doesn't have backward compatibility ifdefs. Most of the compat issues are handled transparently by compat.h and only those developers who patch compat.h ever need to know they exist. When a developer does need to deal with some compat ifdef in a driver, almost all the time it's something trivial and obvious. Change the variable name in both branches. Copy in a couple lines of boilerplate. Sometimes a bigger issue comes up. IIRC, around 2.6.16 there was a major class_device change in the kernel and backward compat code for it ended up being a nightmare. So we didn't do it. We stopped supporting back to ~2.6.11 and moved up the target past the problem change. Actually that was in 2.6.19. The class_device #ifs are still in e.g. v4l2-dev.c. It would be a nice bonus when we can drop that as well. It could be that there were additional changes as well in pre-2.6.16 kernels. If so, then we definitely implemented the backwards compat for it at the time. Maybe this has happened again with the changes to i2c? I don't think it's that hard, but I've yet to do it myself, so maybe it is. I've been working on this since around 2.6.24 (and been involved with i2c in one way or another for quite a bit longer) and I say it's hard. Jean Delvare made the i2c core changes in 2.6.22 and he says it's hard. So perhaps if the two people who know most about the topic say it's hard and not solvable with a compat.h change, or the occasional #if, or a regexp as Mauro seems to be attempting now, then it really IS hard. Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Hans Verkuil wrote: Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? Yes Optional question: Why: Its causing skilled developers to waste time that would be better served in other areas. Because of that, these skilled volunteers are becoming frustrated and losing their interest in pressing forth. It causes unnecessary complexity. The golden rule is to keep things as simple as possible. It presents a hurdle to attracting new development talent (both corporate and individual). When upstream technical changes (such as i2c subsystem changes) have made backporting downstream a nightmare, it is time to seriously evaluate why you are even bothering doing such. The salient point is that it is absolutely illogical for volunteers to be catering to narrow commercial interests. - Arguments about appeasing the needs of Enterprise distro's are moot. V4L-DVB owes them nothing. Enterprise distro's are specifically that -- an enterprise's work; if they crave support, then they can put Hans (or whomever) on the payroll to backport for their specific needs. - Arguments about appeasing the needs of embedded distros/platforms are moot. V4L-DVB owes them nothing. Let those groups figure out and/or support such device needs on their own; else they can put Hans (or whomever) on the payroll. Those manufactures releasing products within this space will adapt to whatever V4L-DVB does.This space will not suddenly fall apart because of our decision. These entrepreneurs have entered this space specifically to exploit a market opportunity. If they exit, someone else will move in. Its simple free market dynamics. (As it is, they are getting a free lunch ... seriously, I think that when the embedded space looks at how bent over accommodating we currently are, they must be rubbing their hands together and gleefully repeating Flounders statement: Oh boy, is this great! (http://www.acmewebpages.com/midi/great.wav)) The V4L-DVB is lacking in strategic direction. Yesterday was the time to adopt one; so lets pick up one today! I believe the plan to currently backport to 2.6.22 but to bump/narrow the kernel support window to the ideal/easier_to_maintain 2.6.25, once express support from the big 3 desktop distos ends, is the most logical choice and the one which will have the most beneficial impact on the project's future. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Yes Optional question: Why: This shall free human resources necessary for performing the switch to the full-kernel development model. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? X _: Yes _: No Optional question: Why: After a certain point it becomes in practical terms impossible to support old versions of anything. There are too many dependencies on too many things that have to be changed all at once. The resulting problems do not pertain only to kernel-related development but to all development, as I have tried to make clear in other posts. I do not know the gory details of just what has become too difficult, as I am new to this area of kernel development, but I am quite willing, based upon a general description, and based upon other experience, to believe that there are problems. I think it is obvious that a version cutoff has to be made somewhere, and seven minor versions behind the kernel which is about to come out does not at all appear to me to be an unreasonable restriction. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 14:12 -0500, CityK wrote: The V4L-DVB is lacking in strategic direction. Yesterday was the time to adopt one; so lets pick up one today! CityK, I see you've been reading (or channeling) my blathering: http://www.linuxtv.org/irc/v4l/index.php?date=2009-02-20 ([19:42] to [20:21]) Regards, Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Am Sonntag, den 22.02.2009, 11:15 +0100 schrieb Hans Verkuil: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? _: Yes _: No Yes. Optional question: Why: Keeping too old kernels supported makes others lazy and in worst case they ask you to support v4l2 version one. (happened) Our user base for new devices is covered with down to 2.6.22 for now, we likely never got anything from those on old commercial distribution kernels, same for Debian and stuff derived from there. Since new drivers actually prefer to avoid the compat work and are happy to make it just into the latest rc1 during the merge window and further from there, there is no loss either. Some new devices we likely get on already established drivers should not be hard to add to a v4l-dvb tar ball we leave with support for the even older kernels. Cheers, Hermann -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Yes... On Mon Feb 23 12:13 , hermann pitton sent: Am Sonntag, den 22.02.2009, 11:15 +0100 schrieb Hans Verkuil: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels _: Yes _: No Yes. Optional question: Why: Keeping too old kernels supported makes others lazy and in worst case they ask you to support v4l2 version one. (happened) Our user base for new devices is covered with down to 2.6.22 for now, we likely never got anything from those on old commercial distribution kernels, same for Debian and stuff derived from there. Since new drivers actually prefer to avoid the compat work and are happy to make it just into the latest rc1 during the merge window and further from there, there is no loss either. Some new devices we likely get on already established drivers should not be hard to add to a v4l-dvb tar ball we leave with support for the even older kernels. Cheers, Hermann -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [Bulk] Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
Andy Walls wrote: On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 14:12 -0500, CityK wrote: The V4L-DVB is lacking in strategic direction. Yesterday was the time to adopt one; so lets pick up one today! CityK, I see you've been reading (or channeling) my blathering: http://www.linuxtv.org/irc/v4l/index.php?date=2009-02-20 ([19:42] to [20:21]) Regards, Andy Rabble Rabble Rabble! ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! ) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: POLL: for/against dropping support for kernels 2.6.22
2009/2/22 Hans Verkuil hverk...@xs4all.nl: Hi all, There are lot's of discussions, but it can be hard sometimes to actually determine someone's opinion. So here is a quick poll, please reply either to the list or directly to me with your yes/no answer and (optional but welcome) a short explanation to your standpoint. It doesn't matter if you are a user or developer, I'd like to see your opinion regardless. Please DO NOT reply to the replies, I'll summarize the results in a week's time and then we can discuss it further. Should we drop support for kernels 2.6.22 in our v4l-dvb repository? ** Yes ** _: No Optional question: Why: (from a non-coder, I have failed miserably to learn how to code in anything other than shell scripting) I think the development of later drivers suffers because of the work needed for backwards kernel compatibility. In any case, I think most home users (like me) will usually be very up to date with their kernels (we so like to tinker where we can) so the drivers for older kernels would only be of any use to those using enterprise kernels, and I think those should be addressed by the people being paid! Isn't that what they're being paid for? Thanks, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Regards,Robert . Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have never been able to make out the numbers. --- Errata: Spelling mistakes are not intentional, however, I don't use spell checkers because it's too easy to allow the spell checker to make the decisions and use words that are out of context for that being written, i.e. their/there, your/you're, threw/through and even accept/except, not to mention foreign (I'm Australian) English spelling, i.e. colour/color, socks/sox, etc,. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
