Re: kernel-2.6

Thank you for the translation. Very kind.

However, it was not so "blind" as you suggest. I asked last week if 
there is "anybody out there who makes comedi work with the kernel 2.6". 
Actually there has been no reaction. I'm just trying to get my driver 
running under 2.6 and I need a comedi version which runs under 2.6. I 
asked kindly last week and there was no reaction. Therefore I made the 
effort and spent the last weekend in front of my computer and hacked a 
2.6 version of comedi. Don't think it was a pleasure. I was pretty much 
work. I'm just now trying to make USB 2.0 work under 2.4 and 2.6 
together with Dave Brownell. He sent me a patch for the 2.6 kernel which 
I can only test with the USB driver for comedi because its the only 
device on earth which uses periodic transfer just now in both 
directions. Therefore I had the choice to write to write a test driver 
for 2.6 just for the fun of it or to port comedi to 2.6. I did the 
latter. I thought that even a "dirty" port to 2.6 might be better than 
waisting my time with a test driver. Please be so nice and answer next 
time (if you've done so last week then ignore this e-mail). This saves 
me time and you are not annoyed when somebody takes "too much" initiative.

I think we can end this discussion now and I'm waiting for the changes 
Frank Mori Hess is just doing. I'm looking forward to them.

Are you still willing to include my USB board driver? :-)

All the best
/Bernd




David Schleef wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:11:14PM +0100, Bernd Porr wrote:
>  
>
>>Yes, I read it. However, it contradicts a bit with the last but one 
>>paragraph where you say that it should be no problem to handle kernel 
>>2.6 modules. As a non native a need a bit more clearer expressions. 
>>Maybe you could simply say what's going on.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I said:
>  
>
>>Agreed.  I did a lot of work on this a few weeks ago as part of
>>a transition to using automake, but never checked it in because
>>it never fully worked (and wasn't even remotely well-tested.)
>>    
>>
>
>"I did a bunch of work to replace the system."
>
>  
>
>>There's nothing fundamentally difficult with supporting 2.6-style
>>kernel modules in the existing makefiles, however, I certainly
>>don't want to touch the steaming pile (which was derived from
>>Linux-2.2.17).
>>    
>>
>
>"It could be possible to continue to use the existing system,
>but I hate it."
>
>  
>
>>That system has lasted so long because it is
>>nearly bug free on 11 architectures, 3 kernel series, a variety
>>of random kernel configuration options, cross-compilation, and
>>voodoo linker flags.  Any potential replacement system will need
>>to meet those requirements before being considered.
>>    
>>
>
>"A replacement system is a hard problem."
>
>The last paragraph was specifically written to encourage people
>not to blindly start proposing fixes without understanding the
>problem and/or complain that a solution doesn't exist yet.
>
>
>
>dave...
>
>  
>

-- 
http://www.cn.stir.ac.uk/~bp1/
mailto:bp1_at_cn.stir.ac.uk

Received on 2003-08-04Z22:46:10