Simon Wilkinson <s...@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> On 26 Jan 2010, at 17:11, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>
>> It's not without risk. You're probably ok (and assuming the symbol
>> versioning works correctly you shouldn't lose if the module does load)
>> but we don't want to rely on it.
>
> RedHat already do this with weak-updates. In theory they guarantee that the
> kernel ABI won't change underneath you using that method, and it is both
> safe, and the approved way of keeping modules around across kernel updates.
But only within "major" releases. E.g. 2.6.18-92 -> 2.6.18-92.1 ->
2.6.18-92.5, but then 2.6.18-128 is "different" (I think).
> S.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
warl...@mit.edu PGP key available
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
