|| >And the person trying to install on a new machine can't rebuild the
|| >kernel, so s/he needs another working system to get going. Bleh.
|| >Relocation at load time might take 1-2 sec of cpu. Big deal. Without
|| >loadable device drivers you must have a working system to generate a new
|| >kernel.
||
|| Most Unices distribute the distribution kernel as a generic kernel,
|| ie one with support for all device drivers compiled in. It gets a little
|| bloated, but if you can boot it, you can run anything.
|
| Sounds to me like you think the Linux kernel as distributed contains
|all the devices anyone would ever want to use, so there's no need for
|being able to support new devices.
The assumption is that as new devices get added (such as Ross's
ethernet drivers), that they will eventually make it into the
distribution kernel, both in the sources and the generic binary.
You can recompile (now), or relink (when a working config
program is implemented) the kernel to add anything you need
before then - propriety GPIB driver, intelligent serial
driver, Ross's ethernet drivers, etc.
| It also sounds like you're trying to say that you think it's too
|hard, and you personally don't need it, so you want to convince
|everyone it's a bad idea.
My opinion is that the percieved benefits (being able to add drivers at run
time, saving a relink, rather than regenerating the kernel Makefile and
relinking), are outweighed by the increased complexity
of the device driver initialization, and memory allocation code.
- You add a new device driver, when one becomes available, or you
install new hardware. Neither is a frequent event.
- Configuring a system, where you recompile ioconf.c or table.c,
and simply link in already compiled .o files for
everything else will take less than a minute on
anything that isn't thrashing - ie, a minimal
386 with ~4M of memory. A reboot without fsck's
(ie, after a clean shutdown) about the same.
So, you save two minutes everytime you add a new
device driver. I added a SCSI disk driver when I
finished the code, and will add a SLIP or CSLIP driver
when one becomes stable.
That's two drivers since last November.
- Loadable device drivers let you shrink kernel size by leaving
out drivers you don't need. You get the same effect
from a config program, only the kernel is even smaller because
it doesn't need any of the hacks needed to accomodate
loadable drivers.
I don't see any real benefits there.
You can argue that loadable device drivers would make debugging
easier for developers. What's ideal for developers isn't necessarily
ideal for users - ask any one who used the early, non-interrupt
driven versions of the SCSI drivers. They'll tell you about the
wonderful interactive performance, and that the system would
never hang for ~30 seconds while the disk(s) synced.
When I did the SCSI code, I put in support for both interrupt, and
non-interrupt driven SCSI drivers, thinking that "It would be
much easier to debug the non-interrupt driven version." It was
marginally easier, and all of the initial SCSI efforts ended up
being of the non-interrupt driven variety that were the bane
of SCSI users. It took us some time to debug the interrupt code (
one line needed moving in scsi.c), modify all of the
lowlevel drivers, and get it back into the "stock" Linux distribution.
Interrupt driven SCSI drivers didn't make the stock distribution until
.97, and we've had SCSI versions since .12, support in the
stock distribution since .95.
It's easier to do it right the first time, and avoid things of
questionable value that may come back to haunt you.
I don't know that loadable device drivers would help that much
during code development. Much of the time is spent in design
and coding. With device drivers, there are good chances of a
bad device driver (ie wild pointer) corrupting the rest of the
system. Even if you can unload the driver, recompile, and load a
new one, you may not want to, because something may have
become corrupt in the rest of the system. If you are booting
from harddisk, the reboot-test cycle is not that bad.
I wouldn't say that loadable device drivers are "too hard" to implement -
just that the added mess in the Linux code, and time it would take
to do so aren't worth the benefits.
Linux is not a completely clean design. Isolation between the
various parts is not absolute. Especially in the cases of
pseudo-devices, like the lowlevel SCSI drivers, there is an
incestuous relationship between the driver code and the surrounding
kernel. The hard disk and SCSI drivers have special consideration
given to them in ll_rw_block.c so they can get multi-block
requests as one device driver request. All of this would
have to change, and in some cases, you may get nicer (but
less tight) code.
Like BSD, Linux uses certain "pseudo-devices." These have
a different interface than the normal block/character devices,
and will need special handling code. Examples would include
SYSV STREAMS, BSD network drivers, the Linux low level
SCSI code.
Different parts of Linux are very dependant on eachother - for
instance, some of the device drivers assume that kernel memory
is identity mapped. malloc() preserves this assumption, but can
only allocate 1 page at a time. The same is true for get_page().
Current Linux devices have no way to "dettach" from the system,
necessary if you use loadable drivers for debugging, the only
real reason you would want them. You need that, a way to track
what's mounted on block devices, etc.
Current Linux code initializes all devices before the move to
user mode, and most of it happens before buffercache, etc, is
allocated. (Well, sys_setup() is called from user mode, but that
just handles the partition tables on disk devices). You'll need
to add all of the code to keep Linux happy when a new device
is added.
It shouldn't be difficult, but I'd rather see people dedicate their
time to useful projects, like a SLIP driver for the TCP/IP package,
a new VM using one page table per process to ease VM386 support,
remove the 64 process limit, increase the address space size, and
support SYSV sghared memory semantics.
Personally, I'll finish the SCSI driver rewrite (Experiments show that
we can expect 3X current performance on unbuffered disks with 1K block file
systems, 2 block read ahead, 12X if we move to 4K block sizes on the
new file systems. Buffered devices will see SOME improvement, I don';t
have one and can't say how much.) before playing with something useless.
--
Microsoft is responsible for propogating the evils it calls DOS and Windows,
IBM for AIX (appropriately called Aches by those having to administer it), but neither is as bad as AT&T. Boycott AT&T, and let them know how you feel.
In article <1992Aug14.171832.23483@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
|
|
|
|
|anyone got this to work with X under Linux????
Yes.
|
|And also, is it true that the Diamond Stealth card won't work 'cuz
|it has that new S3 chip???
Yes. There is currently no freely available S3 driver for X386. However,
some of the Linux crew are working on one. When available, it will probably
be folded into the X386 1.2 sources.
The folks making the S3 are very friendly, and distribute accurate
doccumentation on their chips, for free. Consequently, the S3 will be
supported some time in the forseable future, x386 users will have
an option for high speed graphics (I've seen X on a '486 running
with the commercial S3 server. VERY fast. Very similiar to a
fast RISC workstation, like an HP snake), S3 vendors will have
a new market, and every body will win.
Colorado Memory Systems should take note of this - to the emerging
free Unix market, and users of BSDI's product, many of their
products are absolutely worthless, as they refuse to provide
hardware documentation to anyone.
--
Microsoft is responsible for propogating the evils it calls DOS and Windows,
IBM for AIX (appropriately called Aches by those having to administer it), but neither is as bad as AT&T. Boycott AT&T, and let them know how you feel.
Subject: Re: X questions: how to run x-program on other machine?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:23:37 GMT
In article <zhao.713807106@unixg.ubc.ca> zhao@unixg.ubc.ca (Jiansheng Zhao) writes:
|Hi, there,
|I have X running, but still have some questions.
|1). I couldn't run any x-program (xrn, etc) on our university's mainframe
|unix machine, which has all those wonderful x-program. There supposed to be
|a xhost or something, or setenv DISPLAY xxx.xxx.ca:0, which I cann't figure
|out. University Computing Centre cann't help much, they were suprised to
|know I am running X on a PC under L-I-N-U-X. Is it possible to dial-in and
|run x-program from my linux-X machine?
Not yet. To run the stock X server and clients, you need to have
either a unix domain socket (local machine), or a TCP/IP socket
connection. This means you need to have IP access to the
net on which the host computer runs.
IP access may be attained through either a dirrect ethernet connection,
or via SLIP or CSLIP - Serial Line IP, or Compressed SLIP.
In order to run SLIP, both ends must be support SLIP software. Generally,
you need th sysadmin of the remote site to add you in so that they will
route packets to you.
Another possibility is setting up a bogus X server on the remote
machine as some display other than :0, and coming up with a scheme
for transmitting requests to your local clients through some propriety
scheme.
Certain vendors do this.
You might look at xmx if you are interested.
|2). In which subdirectory should I unpack those X-program sources to
|compile?
Normally, it doesn't matter, as long as you have xmkmf installed on
your system. Xmkmf will "do the right thing", setting up the
include directories, etc, as defined in your X config directory.
--
Microsoft is responsible for propogating the evils it calls DOS and Windows,
IBM for AIX (appropriately called Aches by those having to administer it), but neither is as bad as AT&T. Boycott AT&T, and let them know how you feel.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
