Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:39:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:39:11 -0500 Received: from chaos.physics.uiowa.edu ([128.255.34.189]:13981 "EHLO chaos.physics.uiowa.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:39:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:46:10 -0600 (CST) From: Kai Germaschewski X-X-Sender: kai@chaos.physics.uiowa.edu To: Richard Henderson cc: Rusty Russell , Subject: Re: in-kernel linking issues In-Reply-To: <20021115045146.A23944@twiddle.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 996 Lines: 27 On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Richard Henderson wrote: > [...] > > ld -T z.ld -shared -o z.so z.o BTW, this reminds me of something various people and me have been thinking about for some time, i.e. postprocessing the .o files to generate the actual module object. It seems there are various reasons to do that, possibly the linker issues which triggered the above, the new - yet to be introduced - module version mechanism (I think), and it provides additional benefits like e.g. being able to add the kernel version info in that step, so that a change in EXTRAVERSION doesn't cause a rebuild of just about everything. A related question would be a good suffix for kernel modules, e.g "foo.mo" or "foo.ko" as in module object or kernel object? --Kai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/