Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:58:51 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031857580.1450@desktop> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=UXZ2poL16fdV68fBp=HgkEGUw2tsvi9a3TuVc@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031017110.1450@desktop> <20110103210223.GV2973@elvis.mu.org> <AANLkTinUuQgqJ4AVHxE5ZtnuTO3SX1MNBDYYKSX_L=pK@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031333400.1450@desktop> <4D225E56.2080603@bsdimp.com> <4D22761D.2020706@feral.com> <20110104032143$6d5e@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> <201101040339.p043d3uw081916@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <AANLkTi=UXZ2poL16fdV68fBp=HgkEGUw2tsvi9a3TuVc@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --2547152148-1407749382-1294117135=:1450 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 3 Jan 2011, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Garrett Wollman > <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> wrote: >> In article <20110104032143$6d5e@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, Jeff >> Roberson writes: >> >>> The original OFED porting effort I did with John Polstra and the people at >>> Isilon was never updated to my knowledge. It was more mechanical changes >>> and 'felt' more like FreeBSD but fell so far out of date as to be useless. >>> Interestingly there was originally a porting layer in the ofed stack back >>> as it originally compiled on many operating systems. However the >>> opensource effort focused on linux and the linux people wouldn't take it >>> without the shims removed. >> >> And that, I am absolutely, 100% willing to ascribe to malice on the >> Linux kernel developers' part. (And there's more than one example >> like this, not all of them as easily resolved,[1] due to issues with >> licensing and ownership of original-vendor-abandoned code.) >> >> Fundamentally, maintaining any sort of Linux compatibility is a losing >> battle, since the hordes will keep on rototilling interfaces in every >> release until the cows come home, with no concern (and in many cases >> utter contempt) for anyone else who might need to maintain kernel >> code. It's a testament to their size and ability that they have >> managed to keep the system relatively usable and stable over the long >> term when major parts of the system get replaced on such a regular >> basis. > > Yeah... but rototilling cow crap on a regular basis still doesn't make > one a proper farmer :(... bugs occur everywhere of course, but the > complete lack of disregard or interest for testing (even in LTP) seems > to just scream maintenance nightmare longterm. Oh well, I've given up > harping on Linux devs because they don't seem to want to listen, and I > look forward to the day that my committership in that project is done. > > I guess big companies that depend on Linux have expendable resources > to toss at projects then; would be nice if we had those resources > *grin*. `Fixing' issues using brute force isn't smart and it's not > scalable, as I'm sure more folks on here are aware than I am. Hey guys. I appreciate this discussion and I think it's valuable in another context but let's try to keep the linux derision out of the mailing archives for our architectural discussion group. Thanks, Jeff > > Thanks, > -Garrett > --2547152148-1407749382-1294117135=:1450--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1101031857580.1450>