←back to thread

Bcachefs may be headed out of the kernel

(lwn.net)
144 points ksec | 8 comments | 04 Jul 25 13:32 UTC | HN request time: 1.186s | source | bottom
Show context
charcircuit ◴[04 Jul 25 17:11 UTC] No.44466214[source]▶
If Linux would add a stable kernel module API this wouldn't be a huge a problem and it would be easy for bcachefs to ship as a kernel module with his own independent release schedule.
replies(4): >>44466240 #>>44466273 #>>44467337 #>>44469160 #
1. homebrewer ◴[04 Jul 25 17:17 UTC] No.44466273[source]▶
It would also have a lot less FOSS drivers, neither we nor FreeBSD (which is often invoked in these complaints) would have amdgpu for example.
replies(2): >>44466334 #>>44467457 #
2. charcircuit ◴[04 Jul 25 17:24 UTC] No.44466334[source]▶
I would actually posture that making it easier to make drivers would actually have the opposite effect and result in more FOSS drivers.

>FreeBSD (which is often invoked in these complaints) would have amdgpu for example.

In such a hypothetical FreeBSD could reimplement the stable API of Linux.

replies(3): >>44466468 #>>44466515 #>>44466547 #
3. throw0101d ◴[04 Jul 25 17:43 UTC] No.44466468[source]▶
> In such a hypothetical FreeBSD could reimplement the stable API of Linux.

Like it does with the userland API of Linux, which is stable:

* https://wiki.freebsd.org/Linuxulator

4. smcameron ◴[04 Jul 25 17:51 UTC] No.44466515[source]▶
No, every gpu vendor out there would prefer proprietary drivers and with a stable ABI, they could do it, and would do, there is no question about it.

I worked for HP on storage drivers for a decade or so, and had their been a stable ABI, HP would have shipped proprietary storage drivers for everything. Even without a stable ABI, they shipped proprietary drivers at considerable effort, compiling for myriad different distro kernels. It was a nightmare, and good thing too, or there wouldn't be any open source drivers.

replies(1): >>44467335 #
5. msgodel ◴[04 Jul 25 17:54 UTC] No.44466547[source]▶
It's plenty easy to make drivers now, it's just hard to distribute them without sharing the source.

There is absolutely no good reason not to share driver source though so that's a terrible use case to optimize for.

6. charcircuit ◴[04 Jul 25 19:48 UTC] No.44467335{3}[source]▶
I never said they wouldn't. Having more and better drivers is a good thing for Linux users. It's okay for proprietary drivers to exist. The kernel isn't meant to be a vehicle to push the free software agenda.
replies(1): >>44469486 #
7. Nextgrid ◴[04 Jul 25 20:05 UTC] No.44467457[source]▶
What's so bad about it? Windows to this day doesn't have FOSS drivers as standard and despite that is pretty successful. In practice, as long as a driver works it's fine for the vast majority of users, and you can always disassemble and binary-patch if really needed.

(it's not obvious that having to occasionally disassemble/patch closed-source drivers is worse than the collective effort wasted trying to get every single thing in the kernel and keep it up to date).

8. ◴[05 Jul 25 01:46 UTC] No.44469486{4}[source]▶