From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265232AbTLKSqh (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:46:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265237AbTLKSqh (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:46:37 -0500 Received: from mail.scitechsoft.com ([63.195.13.67]:4559 "EHLO mail.scitechsoft.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265232AbTLKSqf (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:46:35 -0500 From: "Kendall Bennett" Organization: SciTech Software, Inc. To: Jesse Pollard Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:47:28 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? CC: Linus Torvalds , "'Andre Hedrick'" , "'Arjan van de Ven'" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3FD84B40.2288.66EB3B3C@localhost> References: <3FD72F7E.4493.6296CE66@localhost> In-reply-to: <03121109291901.01687@tabby> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jesse Pollard 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! ~