From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1C2691EF7BC; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu (mta1.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.23]) by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5BD1EF7AF for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFB449D029 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:04:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta1.math.wisc.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cClxIXVHMTgB for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:04:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mta1.math.wisc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D2749D025 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:04:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mta1.math.wisc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.0 required=6.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from mailhost.math.wisc.edu (erdos.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.25]) by mta1.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:04:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [144.92.166.19] (vv507j.math.wisc.edu [144.92.166.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhost.math.wisc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF69A420CAD for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:04:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5436EA36.5010105@math.wisc.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:04:06 -0500 From: "John G. Heim" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." Subject: speakup in the kernel References: <86a956i23h.fsf@vibrator.pk5001z> <20141009125200.GI1044@opera.rednote.net> <86ppe1gyed.fsf@vibrator.pk5001z> <5436B2E4.5060306@math.wisc.edu> <5436B66A.4060600@tysdomain.com> <5436BD4A.1090208@math.wisc.edu> <21053.1412882630@ccs.covici.com> In-Reply-To: <21053.1412882630@ccs.covici.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 X-BeenThere: speakup@linux-speakup.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 20:04:10 -0000 John, didn't you once try to form a team to get started on a rewrite of speakup. What ever happened with that? I'm not sure who said it but I agree with whomever said the first thing we should do is try to get a concensus on what we need in a screen reader. But I am a bit confused by something you said below. Isn't the serial console code in the kernel up to kernel coding standards? The reason I ask is that I once asked on the kernel developers list what the right way to access the serial port was. If speakup does it wrong, that implies there is a right way, what is that? I didn't really get a good answer. That's when I started poking around in the serial console code. I wish there was a good way to get explanations of this stuff from the kernel developers. On 10/09/14 14:23, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote: > The first serial driver I wrote for speakup was like that, I copied > stuff from the serial console, but it had to be changed to conform to > the kernel specs, so you didn't have to patch the actual kernel. > > John G. Heim wrote: > >> I once spent an afternoon poking around in the serial console code >> trying to see how it wrote to the serial port. I never did figure it >> out though. Even so, it seems to me that what speakup does is pretty >> similar to the serial console. >> >> >> >> On 10/09/14 11:23, Littlefield, Tyler wrote: >>> Re: writing directly to the serial port, Is there another layer that the >>> kernel provides that we could go through to avoid that issue entirely? >>> How do other devices work, or is there not any other such modules in the >>> kernel that do use the serial port like speakup does for synths? >>> On 10/9/2014 12:08 PM, John G. Heim wrote: >>>> Hmmm... I don't know. I have to say that I remain unconvinced. I've >>>> never seen speakup cause a kernel panic. On the other hand, I have >>>> witnessed the false cause effect. Something happens that causes a >>>> kernel panic and since speakup is part of the kernel, it naturally has >>>> problems. You were on a development server, right? Isn't it more >>>> likely that one of the developers crashed the server amd that, in >>>> turn, caused problems for speakup? I run some development servers here >>>> at the UW math department and it happens all the time. Somebody causes >>>> an OOM (out of memory) event and, yes, that crashes speakup. >>>> >>>> I once asked on the kernel developers list for comments on what's >>>> wrong with the speakup code. There is that one biggie, of course, >>>> speakup writes directly to the serial port. But all the other >>>> criticisms were things like not following naming conventions, poor >>>> indentation, etc. Maybe the people who mattered didn't bother to >>>> answer my question. But there wasn't anything in there that would tend >>>> to indicate that speakup is prone to causing kernel panics. Now, any >>>> software package can have a bug. But I have no reason to believe that >>>> speakup is particularly unstable. Quite the contrary in fact. >>>> >>>> And even if there is a bug in speakup that can cause a kernel panic, >>>> that's an argument for finding the bug and fixing it. Not for >>>> abandoning it entirely. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/09/14 08:34, Deedra Waters wrote: >>>>> Janina, >>>>> >>>>> speakup was the cause because when bossman came down to hook up a >>>>> monitor and look, the panick messages had something to do with speakup. >>>>> >>>>> As for backing up their work, they were trying to fix their fuck-up to >>>>> begin with. The initial problem wasn't with speakup. However when i was >>>>> helping them debug it, speakup made the kernel panick and crash. >>>>> >>>>> Debian i dont think likes people with root access on their box to begin >>>>> with, but i think they kind of didn't like speakup in their kernel to >>>>> begin with. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect on the other hand that if speakup was a user-space app, it >>>>> wouldn't have mattered to them so much. If a userspace program crashes >>>>> it doesn't take down the whole box. When speakup does though, it takes >>>>> down the whole box. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Speakup mailing list >>>> Speakup@linux-speakup.org >>>> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Speakup mailing list >> Speakup@linux-speakup.org >> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup >