From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: A generic kernel compatibilty code Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:20:08 -0800 Message-ID: <43e72e890911230820x2c784c57he387ffd53a9ccc9@mail.gmail.com> References: <43e72e890911201245r4de5b039hb2dd5011dabf2399@mail.gmail.com> <1258750858.2877.58.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> <43e72e890911201307g2a1f280aie223ed4fd270aad@mail.gmail.com> <1258982793.2845.13.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:45965 "EHLO mail-iw0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755869AbZKWQUW convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:20:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1258982793.2845.13.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 13:07 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Ben Hutchings >> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:45 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Everyone and their mother reinvents the wheel when it comes to >> >> backporting kernel modules. It a painful job and it seems to me a= n >> >> alternative is possible. If we can write generic compatibilty cod= e for >> >> a new routine introduced on the next kernel how about just mergin= g 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. >> >> >> >> We've already backported everything needed for wireless drivers u= nder >> >> compat-wireless under this format down to even 2.6.25. >> > [...] >> > >> > If you think 2.6.25 is old then I don't think you understand the s= cale >> > of the problem. >> > >> > OEMs still expect us to support RHEL 4 (2.6.9) and SLES 9 (2.6.5) = though >> > the latter will probably be dropped soon. =C2=A0Some other vendors= apparently >> > still need to support even 2.4 kernels! >> >> Heh understood. Well shouldn't this help with that then? Sure I'd lo= ve >> to see the Enteprise Linux releases on 2.6.31 but that's not going t= o >> happen right? Shouldn't this help then? > > You'd really have to ask the 'enterprise' vendors whether they'd be > interested in working on some sort of shared forward-compat library. OK will do thanks. >=C2=A0If the library is to include a module rather than being statical= ly linked > into each module that needs it then there can only be one instance in > the system. Sure, that's the idea. Luis