Re: A generic kernel compatibilty code

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM, John W. Linville
> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:53:51PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Everyone and their mother reinvents the wheel when it comes to
>>> >> backporting kernel modules. It a painful job and it seems to me an
>>> >> alternative is possible. If we can write generic compatibilty code for
>>> >> a new routine introduced on the next kernel how about just merging it
>>> >> to the kernel under some generic compat module. This would be
>>> >> completey ignored by everyone using the stable kernel but can be
>>> >> copied by anyone doing backport work.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I'm thinking something as simple as a generic compat/comat.ko with
>>> >> compat-2.6.32.[ch] files.
>>> >
>>> > FWIW, I meant a compat-2.6.32.[ch] and compat-2.6.31.[ch] and so on.
>>> > All these would link to the compat.ko
>>>
>>> I supose this could juse be a separate tree with some generic
>>> compat.ko module. That might work better.
>>
>> This is what I would suggest for pursuing this idea.  Perhaps you
>> could split-off from compat-wireless, then make that tree depend on
>> the new tree (compat-core?)...
>
> OK thanks, will try that for the next kernel.

I've packaged a compat.ko here:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/compat.git

This should be up as soon as the kernel.org synchs. The missing piece
would just be to define a common place to put the headers for
distributions who want to use external modules which want to use this
thing.

  Luis