Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] sysfs compat

[Simon Wunderlich <simon.wunderlich@s2003.tu-chemnitz.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1753 bytes --]

Hi,

personally i need 2.6.24, and don't care much about 2.6.20, so i would not bother
to drop support for this special version - We can however integrate patches, i'm
sure someone will look at it if it is a trivial conversion.

Marek, i've tested your patches with all major kernel releases from 2.6.20 to 
2.6.33. What i have seen is:

 * 2.6.20 fails for various reasons
 * 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 show some warnings
 * all other kernel versions are fine

The warnings for 23 and 24 can be fixed by moving the *_read() defines from 
"< 2.6.25" to "< 2.6.23". If you integrate this modification into your patch, 
you will gain my blessing and my sign-off. :)

best regards,
	Simon

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:28:08AM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the current trunk contains some code which breaks our backward compatibility, 
> especially the sysfs API seem to be troublesome. I made 2 patches that address 
> the issue on my 2.6.21 test system. It would be nice if you could test them on 
> your system as well. I'd be particularly interested in kernels older than 
> 2.6.25. Does someone have a 2.6.20 system ?
> 
> At some point we have to start thinking about how many versions we want to 
> support. Each new kernel brings more changes which need to be dealt with. 
> Right now, the required effort is still at a sustainable level but the gap is 
> growing. On one hand it is a nice playground to expand our knowledge about 
> macros and demonstrate what nasty things you can do (see the second patch as 
> an example).  ;-)
> On the other hand it always requires a serious amount of time and effort. It 
> only makes sense if at least some people are using it. Opinions ?
> 
> Regards,
> Marek
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]