From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 4 04:15:14 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 32B7C106564A for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:15:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f196.google.com (mail-wy0-f196.google.com [74.125.82.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B641B8FC16 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 04:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so5120822wyb.7 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:15:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vdPn6EmYlC+depSCh2aguCS0FzLXwj11P4z1vrBcjWg=; b=D5VIpU6Ij++tlgjIq0BTawTs4hM/LHWJQXkjoI2MvgdLPfV836Ro8qfz2d++WIYN+e JOvptmuur759ECmfPJVlRLb445NK1M0ybwa5B9Kg2mv/dT7UDyhiwCY/D1jxjjMZlR7F GCgNhQ6jziAfpjL0urf0CBuKrNwZXldhm5KKM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Oja2LhPtW+Ww9j3NYhU8LL++4BAd3a1kxjsZQxtIHKXueEqXNMsbZ0yav3Ciqx6rhz DRCi8R/Z5IYX+YDRUnFJEXf9UdxZ0GqIQBwDh/cWrlRaAq0STMzvgCyBOi231sI6SSzk J8TwohkzqEiecQDNFEJ+WpCyb+GHzjL87yW2Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.141.37 with SMTP id f37mr6810088wej.31.1294114512617; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:15:12 -0800 (PST) Sender: yanegomi@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.254.226 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:15:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201101040339.p043d3uw081916@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> 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> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:15:12 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MwQlj6NE_U4Ccg-TaO_u2qNu0J8 Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: Garrett Wollman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: arch@freebsd.org 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 04:15:14 -0000 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 a= t >>Isilon was never updated to my knowledge. =A0It was more mechanical chang= es >>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. =A0However 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. =A0(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. =A0It'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. Thanks, -Garrett