From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:40:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:40:22 -0400 Received: from hinako.ambusiness.com ([64.59.51.7]:17168 "EHLO Hinako.AMBusiness.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:40:15 -0400 Message-ID: <008d01c0fe43$7cc875f0$9865fea9@optima> From: "Anthony Barbachan" To: "Christoph Hellwig" , "Horst von Brand" Cc: In-Reply-To: <200106251553.f5PFr0v17268@ns.caldera.de> Subject: Re: Making a module 2.4 compatible Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:25:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Hellwig" To: "Horst von Brand" Cc: Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Making a module 2.4 compatible > Hi Horst, > > In article <200106241713.f5OHDItV000540@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl> you wrote: > > Seconded! There are a few users of iBCS around here, who _need_ the > > functionality and don't get it with 2.4.x (in this case, Red Hat 7.1). Or > > is there a replacement for it? > > Take a look at inux-abi: > > http://linux-abi.sourceforge.net > ftp://ftp.openlinux.org/pub/people/hch/linux-abi I've tried linux-abi myself. No luck at all. Best I can tell it has yet to reach the level of compatibility that iBCS has. Although last version I tried was the 2.4.3 patch on the linux abi web site. I noticed a newer one on the openlinux ftp site, might give that one a try too though considering what happened with the one I previously tried I am nowhere near optimistic. Unfortunately this has burned me since I need to setup a new system that uses the new features of the 2.4.x kernels (latest rieserfs, better smp, support for the latest ide chipsets, better scaling) which also can run SCO binaries. I am actually at the point where I am strongly considering trying to port iBCS myself though not sure about it yet mainly due to concerns that I may not implement it correctly to work with some of the latest kernel changes without understanding how the original iBCS was designed. By the way is there a reason there isn't a patch to support the latest available for the 2.2.x kernels? Is it incompatible with the 2.2.x kernels? I recently needed to downgrade the kernel on a machine due to 2.4.x instability but was unable to due to the lack of a patch to support the latest rieserfs on 2.2.x.