[rfc] removing the NDISulator

[Adrian Chadd]

Because the Linux stuff is mostly very GPL.

Adrian
On Oct 23, 2013 2:15 PM, "Alfred Perlstein" <bright at mu.org> wrote:

> On 10/23/13 11:11 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> On 23 October 2013 11:09, Alfred Perlstein <bright at mu.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Eh, having taken a stab at porting the bwl blob already, I would strongly
>>>
>>>> oppose removing NDIS.  If you do that I will just stop using my netbook
>>>> with a Broadcom part altogether as I wouldn't be able to use it to try
>>>> to
>>>> test bwl changes.  The NDIS thing is a bit hackish, but it is quite
>>>> useful
>>>> for a lot of folks.
>>>>
>>>>   I have to agree.  Deprecation != motivation.
>>>>
>>>
>> I can pull out examples of this not holding true:
>>
>> * all the giant locking in drivers
>> * all the giant locking in VFS
>>
>> People did pop up and claim ownership of things they cared about. Some
>> stuff died, some stuff didn't. There was enough of a motivation by us to
>> kill giant off in these pathways so things could continue to evolve. We
>> didn't leave the GIANT crutch in forever.
>>
>>
>>  Sure, however those drivers and vfs systems were not sustainable and
> holding the kernel back.
>
> What part of the NDISulator actually holds the system back?  I'm saying
> that it seems as if it was conjecture rather than a need.  Is the
> NDISulator giant locked?
>
> Also why the interest in writing drivers so much?  Being able to leverage
> other platform drivers is pretty neat and saves us a ton of work.
>
> --
> Alfred Perlstein
>
>