Hi!
I guess version check is needed, but this is excessive:
Apr 5 07:33:16 amd kernel: udlfb: version magic
'2.6.34-rc3-00345-ge8240f9-dirty SMP mod_unload CORE2 ' should be
'2.6.34-rc3-00344-g548fc0a-dirty SMP mod_unload CORE2 '
Yes, I played with git and recompiled my kernel in order to get new
module version, but... not even insmod -f works.
Having to reboot every time I recompile the module or play with git
makes modules useless for development :-(.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Hi,
> Having to reboot every time I recompile the module or play with git
> makes modules useless for development :-(.
Confirmed. -rc3 (from 2.6.33 - sorry) was the only kernel I ever
observed this on (I simply changed a driver and redid make modules_install,
boom, version string (/lib/modules/...) changed from 2.6.34-rc3 to
2.6.34-rc3-...-dirty, despite having kept my git unupdated and on the
2.6.34-rc3 tag.
Andreas Mohr
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Apr 5 07:33:16 amd kernel: udlfb: version magic
> '2.6.34-rc3-00345-ge8240f9-dirty SMP mod_unload CORE2 ' should be
> '2.6.34-rc3-00344-g548fc0a-dirty SMP mod_unload CORE2 '
>
> Yes, I played with git and recompiled my kernel in order to get new
> module version, but... not even insmod -f works.
>
> Having to reboot every time I recompile the module or play with git
> makes modules useless for development :-(.
Disable CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO?
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Apr 5 07:33:16 amd kernel: udlfb: version magic
> > '2.6.34-rc3-00345-ge8240f9-dirty SMP mod_unload CORE2 ' should be
> > '2.6.34-rc3-00344-g548fc0a-dirty SMP mod_unload CORE2 '
> >
> > Yes, I played with git and recompiled my kernel in order to get new
> > module version, but... not even insmod -f works.
> >
> > Having to reboot every time I recompile the module or play with git
> > makes modules useless for development :-(.
>
> Disable CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO?
Yes, but... should module version checking be fixed so that it does
not interfere like that?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Tuesday 06 April 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Yes, but... should module version checking be fixed so that it does
> not interfere like that?
I don't think so. Essentially you are getting what you configured: an
extremely fine-grained kernel version. It's up to you to decide whether
the benefits of that outweigh the limitations it brings.
Stripping parts of the kernel version for module compatibility checks could
interfere with suffixes explicitly added by distros to specify ABI
compatibility.
Cheers,
FJP
On Tue 2010-04-06 15:00:31, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 April 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Yes, but... should module version checking be fixed so that it does
> > not interfere like that?
>
> I don't think so. Essentially you are getting what you configured: an
> extremely fine-grained kernel version. It's up to you to decide whether
> the benefits of that outweigh the limitations it brings.
Yes, I want descriptive version strings. And yes, I'd like to use
modules, and do development.
Unfortunately, these two seem mutually exclusive. Given that Linus
made noises (iirc) about 'everyone should set localversion_auto'...
> Stripping parts of the kernel version for module compatibility checks could
> interfere with suffixes explicitly added by distros to specify ABI
> compatibility.
So split the version into regular parts and very detailed parts,
putting explicit user options into 'regular'?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html