From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:12418 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751442AbWHNFpW (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:45:22 -0400 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: module compiler version check still needed? Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:45:14 +0200 References: <31645.1155445159@ocs10w.ocs.com.au> <200608140659.49462.ak@suse.de> <20060814053831.GA23871@mars.ravnborg.org> In-Reply-To: <20060814053831.GA23871@mars.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608140745.14435.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Keith Owens , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 14 August 2006 07:38, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:59:49AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > Will we remember to add the check back in when we introduce new > > > dependencies on compiler versions? > > > > If something breaks it be readded. I see it only as a special > > hack for some extraordinary, and hopefully these problems won't happen again. > What we should add should be some kind of cabability mask. It would be probably overkill. > There is no need to require that modules are built with exactly the same > compiler as the kernel when it is only a very few compiler versions that > causes layout/ABI differences. On i386/x86-64 that's not the case anymore as far as I know. -Andi