On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 08 February 2006 12:26 pm, Martin Diehl wrote: > > * was validated and approved by the FDA so any change is very expensive > > ... and which is accordingly verified as part of a system which > includes a specific Linux kernel version, yes? (If not, then the > regulatory approval process can't be doing its job...)
yes. > If you're upgrading that system, you must already have committed > to re-testing costs for regulatory compliance. generally spoken, yes. > So that particular > issue is a straw man. No. There's a big difference whether you are dealing with the critical path or not. Redesigning the driver to userspace means full test of new driver and usbfs/libusb. This is much more effort then demonstrating the already qualified driver still behaves after updating the (rather uncritical) rest of the system. Nobody requires a full C1 or better testing of the whole system - we are not talking about an airplane or nuclear power station - AFAICS I could even use XP for this device if I wouldn't dislike... But again, as said in the other posting - I'm just trying to update facts. Currently, not having a stable driver api is one of the major drawbacks of Linux (IMHO). From my POV this patch seems to make things even worse as it goes in the wrong direction. I'm just asking if this is intentionally and what the options are so I can re-evaluate decisions before it's too late. Martin ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
