From: Sengan Baring-Gould <sengan@seqnet.net>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:07:15 -0600

Re: kgicon into kernel?

> 1. It's supposed to be portable, but yet there are _tons_ of Linux
>    specific stuff in all the headers, and also some of it in the
>    drivers.
> 2. We use a static buffer of 2*pagesize to hold the ioctl arguments,
>    even though most commands are less than 100 bytes. This wastes
>    kernel memory.
> 3. We keep static data inside the drivers! If I have 4 Millennium cards
>    I don't want to have four 60k copies of identical code in kernel
>    memory. It should be handled just like the libggi target does it -
>    have one struct per card containing a pointer to private data for
>    each subsystem driver.
>
> Number 2 can be solved pretty easily, but for 1 and 3 I really don't
> see anything that would justify all the work, when we're just about
> to throw the current KGI API away anyway

I agree.