On 12/15/06, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural
Theodore Tso wrote:
> P.S. For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the
> MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this.
>
(Erm, that was a joke on a parody site; it got widely reported as "news".
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 08:28:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > between the author's intent and the user's intent.
>
> No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
> can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
> them somehow.
Actually, I do think that we've made our position on that side pretty
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:42:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > between the author's intent and the user's intent.
>
> That is NOT TRUE. If the author's
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent.
No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility between the author's intent
and the users intent.
In other words, "fair use"
On Sat, 16 December 2006 09:05:32 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Well.. it is easier to debug in userspace. While bad hw access can
> still kill the box, bad free() will not, and most bugs in early
> developent are actually of 2nd kind.
Isn't that what qemu is for?
Jörn
--
Happiness isn't
On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
>I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
> we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to
> support them somehow.
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent.
That is NOT TRUE. If the author's intent is that anyone who is using
a TV with a screen larger than 29" and
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 11:50, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 16
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As it stands, I believe the
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > >
> > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > > certain restrictions and come with
Hi!
> > Seriously, though, please please pretty please do not allow a facility
> > for "going through a simple interface to get accesses to irqs and
> > memory regions" into the mainline kernel, with or without toy ISA
> > examples.
>
> I do agree.
>
> I'm not violently opposed to something
Hi!
Seriously, though, please please pretty please do not allow a facility
for going through a simple interface to get accesses to irqs and
memory regions into the mainline kernel, with or without toy ISA
examples.
I do agree.
I'm not violently opposed to something like this in
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 11:50, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
That is NOT TRUE. If the author's intent is that anyone who is using
a TV with a screen larger than 29 and with
On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to
support them somehow.
So,
On Sat, 16 December 2006 09:05:32 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
Well.. it is easier to debug in userspace. While bad hw access can
still kill the box, bad free() will not, and most bugs in early
developent are actually of 2nd kind.
Isn't that what qemu is for?
Jörn
--
Happiness isn't having
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
No. fair use comes from an INcompatibility between the author's intent
and the users intent.
In other words, fair use kicks in
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:42:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
That is NOT TRUE. If the author's intent is
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
them somehow.
Actually, I do think that we've made our position on that side pretty
clear.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 08:28:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
No. fair use comes from an INcompatibility between the author's
Theodore Tso wrote:
P.S. For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the
MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this.
(Erm, that was a joke on a parody site; it got widely reported as news.
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html
On 12/15/06, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free, nor is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I understand your point, but not completely agree with the comparison,
because I think that you (as the author) are in the type of authors
you describe below :
Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use.
Sure. Sadly, in
I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized
that they have fair use rights whether the authors give them or not, and
^
that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a derived work
...
I find the RIAA's position and the DMCA
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge
decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't
actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_
possible
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:02 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 14 2006 10:56, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
A small German manufacturer produces high-end AD converter cards. He sells
100 pieces per year, only in Germany and only with Windows drivers. He would
now like to make his cards work with
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
I can consider it fair use if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at
the same
On Dec 16 2006 15:13, Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:02 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
They use floating point in (Windows) kernelspace? Oh my.
Yes, definitely.
Explains why Windows is so slow ;-) [FPU restore and stuff...]
On that matter, when does the Linux kernel do proper FPU
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL zealots never tried
to change or restrict fair use. GPL[23] covers only to distibution of the
covered program. The freedom #0 says explicitly: right to use the program
for any purpose.
I'm
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 03:23:12PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
I can consider it
On Saturday 16 December 2006 22:01, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL zealots never
tried to change or restrict fair use. GPL[23] covers only to
distibution of the covered program. The freedom #0 says
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:33:01PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge
decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't
actually use any
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 02:56:09AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
Otherwise, it seems to be highly unlikely that anyone will want to sue a
company that is often located in a different country, and the only
possible legal action will be cease and desist letters against people
who are
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 01:22:12AM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote:
OK, let assume your perspective of the history is the valid and real one,
then, ¿where are all lawsits against other big GPL only projects? For example
libqt/kdelibs. You can hardly provide any example where the GPL wasn't hold
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> >
> > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
>
> Absolutely. And they boil down to something very
From: "Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor
is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural efficient
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
>
> As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
"Derived works have to be under the same license"
where the
Re :o)
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> >
> > If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
> > get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.
>
> I don't care what you're for, or what your
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Alan wrote:
> > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be free, the natural
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
information is
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
>
> If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
> get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.
I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software
community" is for.
We're "open source", and we're not a
Hi :o)
Linus Torvalds wrote :
> The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the
> exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell
> people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the
> DMCA is bad because it puts technical
On 12/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.
All someone has to do or say is.
"... I did not ever accept the GPL license
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:08:11 -0800
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That is something that I think is well worth fixing. Doesn't Linus own the
> trademark 'Linux'? How about some rules for use of that trademark and a
> 'Works with Linux' logo that can only be used if the hardware
#include
* Jeff V. Merkey [Thu, Dec 14 2006, 12:34:52PM]:
>
> This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
> DOES to create incompatibilities
Just my 0.02€ - one of the things I wonder about is why eg. class*
interfaces has been replaced with something "protected"
#include hallo.h
* Jeff V. Merkey [Thu, Dec 14 2006, 12:34:52PM]:
This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
Just my 0.02€ - one of the things I wonder about is why eg. class*
interfaces has been replaced with something protected
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:08:11 -0800
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is something that I think is well worth fixing. Doesn't Linus own the
trademark 'Linux'? How about some rules for use of that trademark and a
'Works with Linux' logo that can only be used if the hardware
On 12/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.
All someone has to do or say is.
... I did not ever accept the GPL license
Hi :o)
Linus Torvalds wrote :
The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the
exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell
people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the
DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
If the free software community has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.
I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary free software
community is for.
We're open source, and we're not a
blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free, nor is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of
information is
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Alan wrote:
blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free, nor is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural
Re :o)
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
If the free software community has the clout to twist vendor's arms to
get them release driver source, then I'm all for it.
I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary free
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
Derived works have to be under the same license
where the rest
From: Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free, nor
is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain obligations
Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple:
Linus,
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:59 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The kernel part of the UIO driver also knows how to shut the interrupt
> > up, so where is the difference ?
>
> Thomas, you've been discussing some totally different and private
> Thomas-only thread than everybody else in this
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
The kernel part of the UIO driver also knows how to shut the interrupt
up, so where is the difference ?
Thomas, you've been discussing some totally different and private
Thomas-only thread than everybody else in this
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> The kernel part of the UIO driver also knows how to shut the interrupt
> up, so where is the difference ?
Thomas, you've been discussing some totally different and private
Thomas-only thread than everybody else in this thread has been.
The
On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:39, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > >
> > > It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
> > > supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
> > > only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
> > > kernel
>
> It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be
> supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team
> only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the
> kernel only means we've declared the API supportable, I know in theory
> marking
On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:21, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> > > Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
> > > drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
> > > kernel ASAP
On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan wrote:
> Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
> drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
> kernel ASAP for example.
ACK++ We should definitely push Nouveau[1] as hard as we
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:26:26PM +, Alan wrote:
> > Think of uio as just a "class" of driver, like input or v4l. It's still
> > up to the driver writer to provide a proper bus interface to the
> > hardware (pci, usb, etc.) in order for the device to work at all.
>
> Understood. That leads
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 09:26 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> > I don't get you. The rtc module does something similar (RTC generates
> > interrupts and notifies userspace about it)
>
> The RTC module knows how to shut the interrupt up.
The
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 20:29 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 14 December 2006 15:12, Ben Collins wrote:
> > You can't talk about drivers that don't exist for Linux. Things like
> > bcm43xx aren't effected by this new restriction for GPL-only drivers.
> > There's no binary-only driver for
On Thursday 14 December 2006 15:12, Ben Collins wrote:
> You can't talk about drivers that don't exist for Linux. Things like
> bcm43xx aren't effected by this new restriction for GPL-only drivers.
> There's no binary-only driver for it (ndiswrapper doesn't count). If the
> hardware vendor doesn't
> And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
> information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
> buy some hardware labelled "runs under Linux", it could turn out that's
> with a Windows driver running under ndiswrapper...
That is something that I
mber 14, 2006 11:43 AM
> To: Chris Wedgwood
> Cc: Eric Sandeen; Christoph Hellwig; Linus Torvalds; Jeff
> Garzik; Greg KH; Jonathan Corbet; Andrew Morton; Martin
> Bligh; Michael K. Edwards; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more
> Drive
This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.If the code
is FREE then let it be. You can put whatever
you want in the code -- I will remove any such constructs, just like I
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote:
> > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
> > > distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
> >
> > Doesn't that sound even more
On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
> than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite
> convey what it means, either.
Calling
Rik van Riel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> Maybe we should just educate users and teach them to
> avoid crazy unsupportable configurations and simply buy
> the hardware that has open drivers available?
Educating the users may help, but it's hard to do the
education once they've already bought the
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:45:16PM +0100, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> What you suggest is not a "small kernel module". It's what we have now,
> writing a complete driver.
Who says a complete driver has to be big?
> That's what UIO does, plus some standard sysfs files, that tell you e.g.
> the
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
Well, I'm not sure the _INTERNAL name is all that much better than the
_GPL one.
In many ways, the _GPL one describes the _effects_ better, and also points
out the reason _why_ something is
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Yeah, like that one. WITH THE POLITICAL AGENDA CODE REMOVED.
No. That's really a purely technical thing.
I'm not certain I understand what you mean here. Nasty messages using
the word "taint" is purely
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing
> than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite
> convey what it means, either.
Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing?
>
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Yeah, like that one. WITH THE POLITICAL AGENDA CODE REMOVED.
No. That's really a purely technical thing.
You can still do whatever you want, but people who support the resulting
mess know that they shouldn't.
Linus
-
To
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate
exactly as Linus describes, and
legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of
affected kernel code
(albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 10:56 +0100, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
[]
> A small German manufacturer produces high-end AD converter cards. He sells
> 100 pieces per year, only in Germany and only with Windows drivers. He would
> now like to make his cards work with Linux. He has two driver programmers
On Dec 14 2006 09:52, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
>
>A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
>nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be
> Think of uio as just a "class" of driver, like input or v4l. It's still
> up to the driver writer to provide a proper bus interface to the
> hardware (pci, usb, etc.) in order for the device to work at all.
Understood. That leads me to ask another question of the folks who deal
with a lot of
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
>
> A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
> nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be pretty large and
>
> One of the things that I find so interesting about how rabid people
> get about enforcing GPL-only modules is how they start acting more and
> more like the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft every day
There is a saying
"That which you fight you become"
It's a warning that is well worth
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate exactly
as Linus describes, and
legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of
affected kernel code
(albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a "skeleton driver")
and our
On Dec 14 2006 09:32, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> Rather than IRQ_HANDLED, it should have been: remove this irq
>> handler from the irq handlers for irq number N, so that it does
>> not get called again until userspace has acked it.
>
>That just means
On Dec 14 2006 18:17, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
>>
>> They use floating point in (Windows) kernelspace? Oh my.
>
>To be honest, I never really understood where kernel space starts and user
>space
>ends in Windows, so I'm not sure about this :-)
Well, in Windows 95/98 you could do inportb (inb)
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:47 +0100, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 18:34 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 10:56 +0100, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> > []
> > > A small German manufacturer produces high-end AD converter cards. He sells
> > > 100 pieces
Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate exactly
as Linus describes, and
legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of
affected kernel code
(albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a "skeleton driver")
and our proprietary
non derived
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:21 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 14 2006 08:46, Ben Collins wrote:
> >I have to agree with your your whole statement. The gradual changes to
> >lock down kernel modules to a particular license(s) tends to mirror the
> >slow lock down of content (music/movies) that
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be pretty large and
disruptive (though we could
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 18:34 schrieb Bernd Petrovitsch:
> On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 10:56 +0100, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> []
> > A small German manufacturer produces high-end AD converter cards. He sells
> > 100 pieces per year, only in Germany and only with Windows drivers. He would
>
>You know what I think hurts us more than anything? You know what
>probably keeps companies from writing drivers or releasing specs? It's
>because they know some non-paid kernel hackers out there will eventually
>reverse engineer it and write the drivers for them. Free development,
>and they
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
> > done properly (and I think we use it fairly well).
> >
> > I think we _can_ do things
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> Rather than IRQ_HANDLED, it should have been: remove this irq handler
> from the irq handlers for irq number N, so that it does not get called
> again until userspace has acked it.
Wrongo.
That just means that the _handler_ won't be called.
On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
>> >Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
>> >
>> >You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
>> >accessing I/O space.
>>
>> A NULL
101 - 200 of 457 matches
Mail list logo
