Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:04:36 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: gljennjohn@gmail.com Cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r290003 - head/sys/ofed/include/linux Message-ID: <56332494.4050709@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <20151030084126.53f7ffce@ernst.home> References: <201510261328.t9QDSYRT076892@repo.freebsd.org> <56302F9D.2020308@freebsd.org> <56308289.4050902@selasky.org> <20151029143651.GN97830@FreeBSD.org> <56323B33.8020505@selasky.org> <20151030084126.53f7ffce@ernst.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/30/15 08:41, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:28:51 +0100 > Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> 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? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56332494.4050709>