Linus Torvalds included patches into the mainline tree which implement a stable userspace driver API into the Linux kernel. The stable driver API was already announced a year ago by Greg Kroah-Hartman. Now the last patches were uploaded and the API was included in Linus' tree. The idea of the API is to make life easier for driver developers: "This interface allows the ability to write the majority of a driver in userspace with only a very small shell of a driver in the kernel itself. It uses a char device and sysfs to interact with a userspace process to process interrupts and control memory accesses."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Design, design, design, document, document, document - rinse and repeat until you're confident enough that the design is robust enough to be forwards compatible and allow future development without needing to continuously throw out old code because the original design was flawed.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-25
That kind of is the whole argument of why no stable API is better. By just sticking to one design and not trying anything else or allowing that design to evolve with a stable API, they may be stuck with the original poor design as they are seeing how it is used. If they can redo the design a couple of times, then they can have a better design.
Taking the USB stack as an example, if they tried to keep the original design and make it a stable API, would that be better then the evolutionized and better API that they replaced it with as the USB technology progressed with stuff like USB 2.0 coming out? There are tradeoffs on both sides, and the argument was that for Linux's architecture and development process, they thought that a stable API would hinder the development they wanted, being able to correct any API issues that weren't well thoughtout the first time around without having to worry about any obsolete or deprecated APIs.
Member since:2005-07-06
On what basis - you design a stable on the basis of future development; if you design it based solely on todays specifications, of course you're doomed to failure!
Take a look at Sun's own USB stack, for instance - it didn't need to be re-written three times and performs the same if not better than Linux's.
Heck, look at Sun's new network infrastructure for instance, nothing stopped them from pushing some great ideas such as the new network infrastructure - Nemo.
What you're saying to me is that progress without complete breakage is impossible. 25 years of commercial development by way of Windows and various UNIX's says otherwise.
And if they had their act together they would have written their code modular enough so that the calls exposed to developers are written in such a way that their call isn't based on some arbitrary condition on based on decisions made further down.
For example; if you expose an API, if you write it correctly, what the heck is being done behind the scenes should not matter a donkey's diddle to the programmer concerned. He throws his request to the API, and lets the appropriate libraries to sort out the low level work then regurgitating it back to the developer again. What happens inside that blackbox is none of the programmers concern.
To say that some how if you change the internal processes, you're forced to change the external outcomes of each call is completely ignoring the basic understanding of programming.
Member since:2005-07-08
For me, I think the real reason why they don't have a stable driver API is that it would require them to actually knuckle down and design something rather than merely just throwing at a wall to see what sticks.
So you're one of those intelligent design people. Still not convinced that biology works by random chance and natural selection?
I think it's understandable to believe that your deity of choice had the insight to create existence, sit back, pop open a cold one, and watch it play out exactly as He (She?) intended. But attributing the same level of insight to humans, and software developers in particular, is stretching beyond the realm of my ability to understand different points of view.
Certainly there's more standing in the way of human prescience than our failure to knuckle down. It could have something to do with our shockingly arrogant assertion of greatness in spite of our historical failure to achieve mere civility.
We have to keep throwing stuff at the wall, because not everything sticks. To settle for anything less is to squander whatever potential we actually have.
If we're going to do this free software thing, let's not leave any good idea untried. Let's challenge our preconceptions and give it everything we've got. Let's have no regrets and no apologies. Let's throw the notion of meritocracy at the wall and see if it sticks.
Edited 2007-07-22 04:46
Member since:2006-12-28
Member since:2006-01-02
Evolution tends to conserve more than it changes. You can only have life when you have a core set of things that function to maintain homeostasis. Without this, you just have unconstrained chemical reactions which just dissipate energy and create no further development.
We may argue that different levels of homeostasis and transistasis are necessary for different classes of organisms, but most natural organisms evolve by duplicating genes and then mutating one of the replicas so that the old functionality continues working while the other replica either slowly mutates into oblivion or becomes something entirely different.
There's nothing wrong with a stable ABI with clear transitions so that one can be deprecated over several releases while the new one is brought online. The testing and maintanance effort is slightly greater, but with 100s of people involved in the Linux Kernel's development, there really should be no excuse to maintain a pair of ABI revs for major interfaces.
Member since:2006-07-15
>Still not convinced that biology works by random chance and natural selection?
Natural selection is the american reason for racism and the Third Reich. Biology doesn't work by random at all and a computer doesn't work by random at all. I don't have to be full of faith to see the nonsense in this absolute saying.
This what you call "by random" is something we don't understand at the moment. But it's nonsense too to invent some god as explanation.
And you if you don't see the analogy within Linux: it's chaos without almost any order, so it's weak and inferior. Without Linus at the top with his "dictatorship", there wouldn't be a Linux anymore. This is your "god", the mastermind behind it.
>If we're going to do this free software thing, let's not leave any good idea untried.
Yes and don't forget to think about "good ideas", some people call this quality software engineering.
Member since:2006-08-29
As you know, the idea behind a fluid internal API as well as a high frequency release cycle is to make the kernel more agile and see it provide support current technology more quickly.
Initially the result is the lack of a nice clean interfaces and a higher barrier for those trying to get into kernel development (lack of documentation) but it certainly doesn't result in the loss of generic device layers.
As examples look at the new wireless stack (that admittedly we have yet to see a lot of drivers mvoe over too) and libata. Both are good examples of convergence of code and functionality in the kernel. These layers just take time to emerge and are introduced into mature areas of the kernel, there's really no point developing such a layer if over the next X years a whole new class of related devices are going to come along and you haven't foreseen them in your design.
I put you to what is worse: a little continuous effort by driver developers to keep up or developers writing hacks to shoehorn their 2007 hardware into an API that was designed in 2001 (think Windows XP)?
Isn't it true that most wireless drivers for XP have had to implement the majority of their own wireless stack?
Member since:2005-07-07
When things like the USB stack have been rewritten 3 times, people here point to 'ooh, they're optimising' when in reality it has to do with a lack of planning - Linux kernel developers seem to ignore the cardinal rule that all programmers are taught regarding system design and analysis
You would like to believe that is the case but it isn't. The USB drivers are a lot better than the drivers available for Windows or OSX. The reason they are better is because they don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. Sure the Windows USB drivers are stable but they suck in comparison. Microsoft could probably write better drivers now if they wanted to but they would have to sacrifice compatibility.
What people like you fail to realize is that a lot of the rewriting that goes on is re-factoring. There are advantages to stabilizing on an API but there are also advantages not to.
"This is my NeXTstation Turbo Color booting the Mac System 7.1 Operating System using a hardware add-on called 'Daydream'. The Daydream has a Mac ROM and a few custom ICs in it and hooked up to the NeXTs DSP port. Turns your NeXT into a full fledged 68k powered Mac." So cool.
"The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.1, the first feature update of the NetBSD 6 release branch. It represents a selected subset of fixes deemed important for security or stability reasons, as well as new features and enhancements. Please note that all fixes in the prior security/bugfix updates (NetBSD 6.0.1 and 6.0.2) are also in 6.1."
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy."In NixOS, the entire operating system - the kernel, applications, system packages, configuration files, and so on - is built by the Nix package manager from a description in a purely functional build language. The fact that it's purely functional essentially means that building a new configuration cannot overwrite previous configurations. Most of the other features follow from this." Interesting approach. A Linux distribution, sure, but with some very refreshing ideas about system configuration.
Appfour added, among other features, C/C++ support to its new version of AIDE. From Android-IDE, "Now you can write parts of your app or your whole app in C/C++ on your device. AIDE supports the Standard Android NDK toolchain (GCC 4.6 + Bionic, STL, ...). No changes are necessary if you want to build an app developed on a PC with Eclipse. C/C++ development is fully integrated: Build errors appear in the error list and files can easily be navigated to with Go to file. The editor supports C/C++ syntax highlighting."
Ars nails it: "The answer is that Google did announce what amounts to a fairly substantial Android update yesterday. They simply did it without adding to the update fragmentation problems that continue to plague the platform. By focusing on these changes and not the apparently-waiting-in-the-wings update to the core software, Google is showing us one of the ways in which it's trying to fix the update problem."
"It is good for programmers to understand what goes on inside a processor. The CPU is at the heart of our career. What goes on inside the CPU? How long does it take for one instruction to run? What does it mean when a new CPU has a 12-stage pipeline, or 18-stage pipeline, or even a 'deep' 31-stage pipeline? Programs generally treat the CPU as a black box. Instructions go into the box in order, instructions come out of the box in order, and some processing magic happens inside. As a programmer, it is useful to learn what happens inside the box. This is especially true if you will be working on tasks like program optimization. If you don't know what is going on inside the CPU, how can you optimize for it? This article is about what goes on inside the x86 processor's deep pipeline."
"It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.Glass is getting some love at Google I/O as well. New applications have been released - Facebook, Twitter, Evernote, Elle, Tumblr, and CNN. Perhaps more interesting: the newly announced Google Glass Developer Kit will allow offline applications and direct hardware access - great for hacking and expanding Glass' potential. This kit will really allow hackers to put Glass through its paces."But Beck and Merrill decided that simply banning toxic players wasn't an acceptable solution for their game. Riot Games began experimenting with more constructive modes of player management through a formal player behavior initiative that actually conducts controlled experiments on its player base to see what helps reduce bad behavior. The results of that initiative have been shared at a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and on panels at the Penny Arcade Expo East and the Game Developers Conference." Absolutely fascinating stuff. I'm a League of Legends player, and to be honest, the community isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I'm happy Riot games has the guts to employ science to address the issue.
Member since:
2005-07-06
They will claim that there is a difference between a stable API for drivers in user space and one for kernel space.
For me, I think the real reason why they don't have a stable driver API is that it would require them to actually knuckle down and design something rather than merely just throwing at a wall to see what sticks.
When things like the USB stack have been rewritten 3 times, people here point to 'ooh, they're optimising' when in reality it has to do with a lack of planning - Linux kernel developers seem to ignore the cardinal rule that all programmers are taught regarding system design and analysis.
Edited 2007-07-22 02:40