Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lennart Sorensen writes:
>
> > You forgot the very important:
> >- Only works on architecture it was compiled for. So anyone not
> > using i386 (and maybe later x86-64) is simply out of luck. What do
> > nvidia users that want accelerat
At 12:01 AM 3/13/2005 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You wanna give me a quick run-down on x86 of CPL and Ring levels? It's
been bugging me. I know they're there and have a basic idea that they
control what a context can do, don't know what CPL stan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You wanna give me a quick run-down on x86 of CPL and Ring levels? It's
been bugging me. I know they're there and have a basic idea that they
control what a context can do, don't know what CPL stands for, and
there's a visible gap in my knowledge. I
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:32:39 -0500, John Richard Moser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CPL=3 scares me; context switches are expensive. can they have direct
> hardware access? I'm sure a security model to isolate user mode drivers
> could be in place. . .
>
> . . . huh. Xen seems to run Linux at C
Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 05:45:22PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
> > x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
> > usable on the architecture it was compiled for.
>
> Add to that the flavours of ARM and the nu
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500, John Richard Moser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
> binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
> different implementation
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 05:45:22PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
> > A Linux specific binary driver format might be more useful,
>
> No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
> x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
> u
Lennart Sorensen writes:
> You forgot the very important:
>- Only works on architecture it was compiled for. So anyone not
> using i386 (and maybe later x86-64) is simply out of luck. What do
> nvidia users that want accelerated nvidia drivers for X DRI do
> right now if they
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Richard Moser wrote:
> A Linux specific binary driver format might be more useful,
No, it wouldn't. I can use a source code driver on x86,
x86-64 and PPC64 systems, but a binary driver is only
usable on the architecture it was compiled for.
Source code is way more port
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:42 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> People are still e-mailing me about this?
You really expect to post something that inflammatory and have the
emails stop after a few hours?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Chubb wrote:
>>"John" == John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
> John> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on
> John> using binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can
> John> consider a di
> "John" == John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on
John> using binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can
John> consider a different implementation for binary drivers as well,
John> with most of the same ad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
People are still e-mailing me about this?
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:24:15PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
>>I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
>>binary drivers, specifically considering
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:24:15PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
> binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
> different implementation for binary drivers as well, with most of the
> same advantages.
>
Forwarded Message
> From: John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Diego Calleja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: binary drivers and development
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:14:27 -0500
> -BEGIN PGP SI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stop mailing me, I lost interest when I figured out nobody else cared.
Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
> John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> [...]
>
>> - Smaller kernel tree
>
> [...]
>
>> - Better focus
El Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
[...]
> - Smaller kernel tree
[...]
> - Better focused development
[...]
> - Faster rebuilding for developers
It can be done without UDI.
> - UDI supplies SMP safety
Well designed drivers don't have SMP iss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
>
>>I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
>>drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
>>and what
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:19:39PM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Please, the UDI stuff has been proven to be broken and wrong. If you
> > want to work on it, feel free to do so, just don't expect for anyone to
> > accept the UDI layer into the kernel mainline.
>
> 1. What
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've done more thought, here's a small list of advantages on using
binary drivers, specifically considering UDI. You can consider a
different implementation for binary drivers as well, with most of the
same advantages.
- Smaller kernel tree
The k
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
>
>>I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
>>drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
>>and what impact t
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
> drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
> and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
UDI is alre
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:28:39AM -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
> I've been looking at the UDI project[1] and thinking about binary
> drivers and the like, and wondering what most peoples' take on these are
> and what impact that UDI support would have on the kernel's development.
Please, the
23 matches
Mail list logo
