In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: That said, I feel that a single number (or variable name) is too
: coarse and the "do I need to bump the version" decision is too fuzzy.
: Unfortunately, I can't think of anything better that wouldn't incur
: an
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:41:04AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Disadvantages:
>: - Needs grunt-work to write the #defines
>: - Kernel symbols reported by nm(1) look strange (unless we patch
>: binutils to u
The patch that I posted here can't possibly work, but there are other
ways to deal. I'm investigating.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Disadvantages:
: - Needs grunt-work to write the #defines
: - Kernel symbols reported by nm(1) look strange (unless we patch
: binutils to understand our versioning scheme).
: - May present problems to '##' bui
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: My company ships a binary driver ("ethernet" network, and character
: device) built on 4.1.1-R, and it has continued to work at least until
: 4.7-R. I'd like to see that same level of ABI stability throughout
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sean Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:59:01PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > Here's a simple patch. However, it is a total suck-ass kludge (and
: > that's being generous). The ABI isn't THE ABI, but rather a
: > collectio
At 2003-03-06T07:09:40Z, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) If you update any of those kernels, the updated kernel and updated
> modules will be written into /boot/FOO/ as appropriate. BUT old modules
> that weren't rebuilt (eg 3rd party modules) will remain in /boot/FOO/. If
> the ne
M. Warner Losh writes:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sean Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Has anyone ever considered embedding some sort of identifier in kernel
> : modules to keep them from being loaded with the wrong kernel?
>
> Actually, I was talking about this w
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:49:20AM -0600, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Define the version. Change the symbol name when things get too
>> + * incompatible. version_5_1 means the 'ABI compatible with FreeBSD 5.1'
>> + */
>> +char __version_5_1 = 1;
>...
>
>Wouldn't it make more sense to have a s
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:59:01PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>Here's a simple patch. However, it is a total suck-ass kludge (and
>that's being generous). The ABI isn't THE ABI, but rather a
>collection of ABIs. These ABIs change slowly and there is a certain
>range that work together.
I thin
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:59:01PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Here's a simple patch. However, it is a total suck-ass kludge (and
> that's being generous). The ABI isn't THE ABI, but rather a
> collection of ABIs. These ABIs change slowly and there is a certain
> range that work together. Hi
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:33:31PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>At 2003-03-06T03:08:52Z, Sean Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Has anyone ever considered embedding some sort of identifier in kernel
>> modules to keep them from being loaded with the wrong kernel?
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, 5.0 su
At 2003-03-06T03:08:52Z, Sean Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone ever considered embedding some sort of identifier in kernel
> modules to keep them from being loaded with the wrong kernel?
Unless I'm mistaken, 5.0 supports having multiple kernels installed, each
with their own modules
Here's a simple patch. However, it is a total suck-ass kludge (and
that's being generous). The ABI isn't THE ABI, but rather a
collection of ABIs. These ABIs change slowly and there is a certain
range that work together. Historically, we've been really bad about
bumping version numbers when thi
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sean Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Has anyone ever considered embedding some sort of identifier in kernel
: modules to keep them from being loaded with the wrong kernel?
Actually, I was talking about this with Matt Dodd this morning...
Warner
To
I'm not sure if this topic has ever been covered before or not. I couldn't
find it in the list archives, but then I wasn't exactly sure how to search
for it.
Has anyone ever considered embedding some sort of identifier in kernel
modules to keep them from being loaded with the wrong kernel?
Back w
16 matches
Mail list logo
