The reason it's so complex is because all the *nix implementations are so
different. It's quite an undertaking to attempt to create a standard interface
among such varying implmentations.
UDI prototype environments (without kernel modifications, of course) already
exist for Solaris and HP-UX. I don't know about performance numbers but as
I've said before, our own UDI-ish driver interface which is designed along
somewhat the same lines as UDI has shown no real noticable performance
difference for our HP-UX implementation (I'm not sure of Solaris performance
numbers). I also have a Linux implementation which has also shown very
similar performance to a native Linux driver I also wrote for one of our FDDI
devices.
> I am not against UDI. In fact I don't care of such proposal. I want an
> O/S that fits my needs, and for now I have one that did'nt need UDI in
> order to be so.
UDI isn't geared toward users. It's geared toward driver developers. Once
an OS environment is in place, you don't need to worry about it. You write
a new driver to drive some piece of hardware with the knowledge that all of
the OS dependencies have already been taken care of. It's a tool for more
rapid, standardized driver development. Whether the drivers your OS uses
are written to UDI or not has no bearing on your use of that OS.
--
David Hollister Interphase Corporation dhollist@iphase.com
Software Engineer Dallas, TX
http://www.public.asu.edu/~dhollist
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/