On Thu, 15 May 2008 19:49:27 +0200
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:00:46PM +0530, subbu wrote:
> > The reason why we have these abstractions is 
> > because beclib functions are written as 
> > OS neutral code and that needs a helper to
> > do OS specific functions.  By eliminating
> > SA, we will need to make  beclib Linux
> > dependent - something that we would like avoid
> > for ease of maintenance.  Is this approach
> > not acceptable ?  What will is the recommended
> > way to have part so a driver OS independent ?
> 
> We do not recommend it,  but recommend to write Linux
> specific drivers. Operating systems are quite different and you
> get far better drivers if you really optimize them for specific OS.
> That's especially important for performance critical drivers like
> yours for high speed networking.
> 
> Also splitting drivers into generic and OS specific parts typically
> leads to poor and overcomplicated design.
> 
> Anyways if you really want abstraction elsewhere then use the Linux
> names for it. But it's really not recommended.
> 
> -Andi

The underlying reason for this is the Linux kernel developers hatred
of abstraction layers is long term maintenance. Once a driver is accepted
into the mainline, the kernel developers may have to do maintenance on
the driver to fix API's or if the original hardware vendor abandons it.
All the abstraction layer just makes this harder. Some drivers do have
some OS independent portions but they are rare, and usually abstract the
hardware not the device model.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html