From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com ([204.127.198.39]) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Jkwj-0003AP-00 for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 21:04:42 -0400 Received: from mycomputer ([24.62.39.2]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020617010414.UTSO11659.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@mycomputer> for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:04:14 +0000 Message-ID: <00c901c2159a$94546160$01273e18@mycomputer> From: "Igor Gueths" To: Subject: speakup question Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 21:01:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca Errors-To: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi all. Does anyone know why Speakup doesn't use the standard = conventions when designing kernel modules? In other words, why are the = drivers not modularized? Because my plan at least for the dectalk driver = was to write the standard module code, and then dump the rest of the = driver-specific code into the new re-written version. I am doing this = for two reasons. 1. I want to keep the changes as error free as = possible. 2. I don't want to have problems after writing new code. And I = think most of the driver is fine the way it is. I have other reasons for = modularizing the driver, including a project I am currently working on = that requires this.=20