Re: The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That > specification says that > 1. it may not block > 2. it may block > > In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel > relese because they don't

Re: The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Mikulas Patocka
> One of these things must happen: > > a. follow the specification, even if that makes code slow and contorted > b. change the specification > c. ignore the specification > d. get rid of the specification > > Option "a" will not be accepted around here. Sorry. It should be followed in stable

Re: The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Albert D. Cahalan
Mikulas Patocka writes: > Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That > specification says that > 1. it may not block > 2. it may block > > In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel > relese because they don't want to violate the

The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Mikulas Patocka
> > > > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that > > > > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented > > > > > > In-kernel documentation, agreed. > > > > > > _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below. > > > > And

The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Mikulas Patocka
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented In-kernel documentation, agreed. _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below. And do implementators of

Re: The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Albert D. Cahalan
Mikulas Patocka writes: Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That specification says that 1. it may not block 2. it may block In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel relese because they don't want to violate the

Re: The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Mikulas Patocka
One of these things must happen: a. follow the specification, even if that makes code slow and contorted b. change the specification c. ignore the specification d. get rid of the specification Option "a" will not be accepted around here. Sorry. It should be followed in stable releases.

Re: The lack of specification (was Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation... )

2001-02-19 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Mikulas Patocka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That specification says that 1. it may not block 2. it may block In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel relese because they don't want to