| 1 |
Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 2 |
> When HAL evaluated the usage of libpci the following issues were |
| 3 |
> identified: |
| 4 |
> 1) increased memory usage, to the point that HAL was not usable on the |
| 5 |
> OLPC project |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I was only ever aware of concerns that memory usage might be high, but |
| 8 |
wasn't aware it caused specific problems. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I went through the first 3 pages of google results for |
| 11 |
"pciutils inurl:hal site:lists.freedesktop.org" |
| 12 |
"libpci inurl:hal site:lists.freedesktop.org" |
| 13 |
and didn't see anything. Maybe it was discussed elsewhere. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Anyway, if this did happen once, it doesn't seem to happen any more, see |
| 16 |
below. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> 2) ABI breakage between patch revisions (i.e. x.y.z and x.y.z+1 were |
| 19 |
> not ABI compatible) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This doesn't matter when you statically link against the library, as |
| 22 |
long as the API doesn't change. The API that is used in Mike's patch |
| 23 |
does not seem to have changed for a long time. (Nevertheless, see my |
| 24 |
notes under the following item -- this will be solved when the next one |
| 25 |
is solved.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> 3) no shared library |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This is a fair point, but I thought it was never raised as an objection, |
| 30 |
I didn't think it was actually a blocker for acceptance. Especially |
| 31 |
given that parts of HAL already statically link against libpci. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I just looked over the threads again and I now see this: |
| 34 |
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2007-June/008836.html |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I apologise, I must have missed that before. |
| 37 |
OK, so having a dynamic libpci is an outstanding requirement for the |
| 38 |
patch. I will follow up with pciutils upstream about the current state |
| 39 |
of that. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> 4) the library calls exit() when it encounters an error in parsing it's |
| 42 |
> own pci.ids file which would kill the whole app using it. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> There might have been more. I don't remember. Refer to ML discussions |
| 45 |
> and refer to IRC logs with me. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I looked over them, I don't see any others. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> Now Mike (vapier) rectified #4 several pciutils releases ago by |
| 50 |
> providing a callback function that we could define which would override |
| 51 |
> the default exit() behavior. I still think it's sub-par to have an |
| 52 |
> utility library call exit() by default but whatever. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Yeah. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> You were told by me and the HAL ML that once #2 and #3 are rectified and |
| 57 |
> if you could provide some basic memory usage information along with your |
| 58 |
> patch (i.e. show #1 isn't true anymore) that we would happily accept |
| 59 |
> your patch. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> You addressed #1 on the mailing list with a simple statement, which I |
| 62 |
> will paraphrase. "It doesn't use more memory on my machine". To which |
| 63 |
> Danny K asked if you could provide some basic data behind that and you |
| 64 |
> never did. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I did: |
| 67 |
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2007-June/008852.html |
| 68 |
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2007-June/008861.html |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Anyway, apologies for the oversight on the shared library thing -- it |
| 72 |
appears it wasn't total silent rejection after all. I'll let you know |
| 73 |
where that leads. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
Thanks, |
| 76 |
Daniel |
| 77 |
-- |
| 78 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives