> On Oct 30, 2015, at 03:15, Gary Jennejohn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:04:36 +0100 > Hans Petter Selasky <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On 10/30/15 08:41, Gary Jennejohn wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:28:51 +0100 >>> Hans Petter Selasky <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/29/15 15:36, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >>>>>> The LinuxKPI is not a binary compatibility module, and will at some >>>>> H> point have API's diverging from Linux, to fit BSD API's better. >>>>> >>>>> This statement makes the name of LinuxKPI quite pointless, as well >>>>> as the whole idea of the KPI unclear. >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> To be more clear. Adding bind_irq_to_cpu() is more an exception than the >>>> default. A the moment I think Linux doesn't have an equivalent of this >>>> function, because of Linux's interrupt model. >>> >>> My question is whether a "normal" FreeBSD user has any reason to >>> enable LinuxKPI now or in the future. >> >> Hi, >> >> If drivers which depend on this feature are KLD's there's no reason to >> enable this by default in GENERIC. The current and future clients of >> LINUXKPI will possibly be KLD's and then MODULE_DEPEND() will do the >> magic behind the scenes. Was this your question? > > Well, I guess the answer is "no", if I understand you correctly. > >
Only device driver developers need to think about this. Users don't. It's purely to make development simpler. If a user uses such a driver it will load this module automatically. It won't let anyone load a Linux driver, it is only for FreeBSD drivers using Linux-like code to make porting and maintenance simpler. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
