[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Upstreaming patches [Was: RFC: upstreaming debian/patches/exec_filen

From: Zhang Cong
Subject: Re: Upstreaming patches [Was: RFC: upstreaming debian/patches/exec_filename_* and the dde stuff]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 00:27:56 +0800

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
Zhang Cong, le Mon 07 Apr 2014 20:42:04 +0800, a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
> wrote:
>     Again, no.  Drivers can work the way they prefer.  The driver
>     infrastructure itself doesn't need a "bigplan", it is parts of it which
>     need their own.  For instance, the IRQ issue I mentioned has its plan
>     by itself, and it doesn't need to interfere with the physical memory
>     allocation issue.
> That's not sure,  unless we have a plenty of driver works, we may need adjust
> the infrastructure for the need or some new abstract .

Yes, but that new abstract will be independant from other matters
concerning drivers.

> Although we have driver infrastructure, no enough third part driver provider
> now. 
> The audio driver and video driver may be part of hurd at first ( just on repo's
> view), at least some high level abstract, this need a plan.

Sure.  You need a plan for audio, a plan for video.  But you don't need
a plan for both audio & video at the same time, except some general
Hurdish principles, but that's not big.
OK, not big is a good message:)

Cong Zhang

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]