From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 4 04:56:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B06106564A; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:56:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@jroberson.net) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06D98FC0C; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxh35 with SMTP id 35so5975545yxh.13 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.216.5 with SMTP id o5mr1144075ybg.181.1294116971468; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.198] ([72.253.42.56]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 8sm3501441yhl.44.2011.01.03.20.56.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:56:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 18:58:51 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@desktop To: Garrett Cooper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20110103210223.GV2973@elvis.mu.org> <4D225E56.2080603@bsdimp.com> <4D22761D.2020706@feral.com> <20110104032143$6d5e@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> <201101040339.p043d3uw081916@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="2547152148-1407749382-1294117135=:1450" Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 04:56:13 -0000 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 > 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 and 'felt' more like FreeBSD but fell so far out of date as to be useless.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--