> Guys, we all know there's a lot of history. Could we please just
> concentrate on the future? There are drivers to be got going, no?
Right. Alas, 2.4 is rather present than future tense, so that
let's concentrate on the present yet. 8)
> basically the same structure. If he could use his experience and
> knowledge to prepare a reference driver for the 2.4 framework, others
> could follow that.
8) If you know the history, you know that it is exactly
which I prayed to make. I am sorry but this proposal was
refused by all the sides. it is question of the past though. 8)
> The other is to actually understand what is going on. AFAIK there is no
> description of the softnet<->driver interface which allows driver
> writers to gain this understanding. A simple functional API description
> doesn't cut it - we need to know what the dynamic relationships are,
> what serialisation guarantees the higher layer makes, etc.
Jamal's document covered all the _necessary_ topics with
pretty deep explanations. If you have something to add to the list
of "necessary" topics, please, add.
> Yes, I know of davem's email and Jamal's doc. They're not enough. The
> lack of this architectural description will adversely affect Linux's
> overall quality. Is doing so, in fact.
Ask some concrete questions better. All such documents are result
of dialogue, rather than broadcast from a godlike being.
No questions --- no answers.
BTW why did you have no questions before softnet? 8)
The situation was much worse that time and its explanations
really required volumes of controversial texts. 8)