From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: RE : 2.6.6-rc3-mm2 : REGPARAM forced => no external module with some object code only
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:56:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040506125615.GA29503@lug-owl.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040506124454.GA12921@babylon.d2dc.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1291 bytes --]
On Thu, 2004-05-06 08:44:54 -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@babylon.d2dc.net>
wrote in message <20040506124454.GA12921@babylon.d2dc.net>:
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 01:18:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Eric Valette <eric.valette@free.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Changelog says nothing really important but forcing REGPARAM is
> > > rather important : it breaks any external module using object only code
> > > that calls a kernel function.
> >
> > This is why we should remove the option - to reduce the number of ways in
> > which the kernel might have been built. Yes, there will be a bit of
> > transition pain while these people catch up.
Sorry, missed the previous mail...
Well, practically, reducing options will help compatibility, *but*
personally, I don't see a problem there. Linux only claims limited
source compatibility, so I don't see much of a problem there. If binary
modules fall down to their feet, they need to catch up.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-06 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-05 11:56 RE : 2.6.6-rc3-mm2 : REGPARAM forced => no external module with some object code only Eric Valette
2004-05-05 12:09 ` Re " Eric Valette
2004-05-05 20:18 ` RE " Andrew Morton
2004-05-06 12:44 ` Zephaniah E. Hull
2004-05-06 12:56 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw [this message]
2004-05-06 13:05 ` Eric Valette
2004-05-06 15:21 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-09 17:03 ` Bill Davidsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040506125615.GA29503@lug-owl.de \
--to=jbglaw@lug-owl.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox