Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Kendall Bennett
2003-12-11T18:46:37Z

Jesse Pollard <jesse@cats-chateau.net> wrote:

> > You miss my point. I was talking about a single kernel version. For a
> > single kernel version, the ABI is both *published* and *stable*. Sure it
> > may not be what you consider a *clean* or *good* ABI, but it *IS* an
> > ABI. Note that:
> >
> > 1. It is a published ABI because for that one kernel release, all the
> > source code is available that documents the ABI (albiet badly IYO).
> >
> > 2. It is stable because that kernel version will never change on your
> > machine.
>
> Huh? I frequently update the kernel, and the kernel minor version... as
> well as switch from uniprocessor to SMP. The major version may not change,
> but that minor one certanly does. And adding SMP changes the ABI for that
> version. And patches CAN and DO change the ABI, even within the major
> version.

So what? You don't change it on *MY* machine, now do you? *MY* version
remains stable regardless of what *YOU* do unless I update my source
code.

> How do you handle the differences in a single version for
> something like SMP? It is still the same version, but a binary
> driver for SMP will most likely NOT work on uniprocessor, and even
> more likey not work if compiled for a uniprocessor under SMP.

No, it is not the same version. One is the UNI version and one is the SMP
version. By version of kernel I mean the version of the binary that I am
building the loadable module to work with. You can just consider the
UNI/SMP support to be an extension of the version and treat them as
different versions (after all, you will need two separate modules to
handle this anyway).

Regards,

---
Kendall Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
SciTech Software, Inc.
Phone: (530) 894 8400
http://www.scitechsoft.com

~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~