4 ms·

I think the argument here is that stability is gained from having code shared as closely as possible with the Windows codebase, which is where most of the QA wo

I think the argument here is that stability is gained from having code shared as closely as possible with the Windows codebase, which is where most of the QA work happens, and what the real experts debugging their ASICs use. From a hardware and driver development standpoint, I think that makes a decent amount of sense. Hardware is often weird and quirky, so making sure you handle all the edge cases in two different codebases is a lot harder than doing it once. Certainly too much work for a handful of people who just want to plug their code into Linux. Stability here is on the driver/hardware interaction, not the kernel/driver boundary, which is what the kernel folks seem to care about, naturally.

chris_wot 10y ago
Stability for whom? Trying to contort Linux code to follow the practices that work well for Windows does not strike me as either maintainable, or even particularly stable!
- Certhas 10y ago
  What does this have to do with Windows vs Linux? It's about closely working with hardware engineers.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    "I think the argument here is that stability is gained from having code shared as closely as possible with the Windows codebase". HTH.
    - brainfire 10y ago
      You have to read the rest of the comment too. "HTH"
      - chris_wot 10y ago
        Indeed, I did which you seem to have thought I didn't read. So, do you think that bunging in code designed for Windows, which specifically uses a HAL, into Linux, which tries its best not to with the philosophy that the code that goes into Linux should be as clear as possible with as small an abstraction layer as possible is good for Linux, or any of the hundreds of developers or companies relying on the maintainers to keep to this coding and architecture style? I think not. So no, it didn't help.
__s 10y ago
Flipside being that if AMD drivers are developed in the open with proper convention then kernel developers will help maintain them, alleviating cost for AMD. If AMD doesn't want the public maintaining their open source driver then they don't want their driver in the kernel

chris_wot 10y ago

Stability for whom? Trying to contort Linux code to follow the practices that work well for Windows does not strike me as either maintainable, or even particularly stable!

Certhas 10y ago
What does this have to do with Windows vs Linux? It's about closely working with hardware engineers.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  "I think the argument here is that stability is gained from having code shared as closely as possible with the Windows codebase". HTH.
  - brainfire 10y ago
    You have to read the rest of the comment too. "HTH"
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      Indeed, I did which you seem to have thought I didn't read. So, do you think that bunging in code designed for Windows, which specifically uses a HAL, into Linux, which tries its best not to with the philosophy that the code that goes into Linux should be as clear as possible with as small an abstraction layer as possible is good for Linux, or any of the hundreds of developers or companies relying on the maintainers to keep to this coding and architecture style? I think not. So no, it didn't help.

__s 10y ago

Flipside being that if AMD drivers are developed in the open with proper convention then kernel developers will help maintain them, alleviating cost for AMD. If AMD doesn't want the public maintaining their open source driver then they don't want their driver in the kernel