Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:06:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:06:46 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.185]:34779 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:06:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:12:32 +0100 From: Christian Zander To: Kai Germaschewski Cc: Christian Zander , Mark Fasheh , Thomas Schlichter , "Randy.Dunlap" , Sam Ravnborg , LKML , Rusty Russell Subject: Re: no version magic, tainting kernel. Message-ID: <20030126231232.GE394@kugai> Reply-To: Christian Zander References: <20030126215714.GA394@kugai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 03:46:30PM -0600, Kai Germaschewski wrote: > > That's not true. For example, how would an old external build system > magically starting to compile modules as .ko without updating? How > would it have added -DKBUILD_BASENAME and -DKBUILD_MODNAME, which > are required by the new module code. And, how did they avoid subtle > breakage like not giving the same switches on the command line? > (This list goes on...) > I hear you, but these changes were easy enough to adapt to. > Also, it's not true that they've been broken deliberately. As work > progresses, breakage occurs, that's just a fact of live. However, > introduction of __vermagic was not introduced in order to make live > for maintainers of external modules harder, it was introduced since > loading modules compiled with gcc3 into a kernel compiled with gcc2 > caused crashes for people. > Well, in this specific case an alternate solution was proposed that would have solved any of the potential problems pointed out. > Okay, you have a point here, there's still a bug. vermagic.o will be > rebuilt when the version changes or any of the recorded config > options change, but it doesn't pick up changes in the compiler > version, if the new gcc has the same name. > > That's a bug for internal use as well, the patch below fixes it. > Fair enough. > o One thing I do not understand at all: What is the problem with > using the internal build system? It makes maintainance of external > modules much easier than keeping track of what happens in the kernel > and patching a private solution all the time. > My primary concern is compatibility with those kernels that do not use kbuild or a different version of it. Ideally, one would want to use the same build system for all possible kernel versions rather than use Makefiles that attempt to pick the best choice. I guess I'm convinced that the latter is the "best" solution to dealing with this problem at this point, and I can live with that. What's the most reliable way to tell if kbuild is available, and what differences among kbuild versions will one have to look out for? > I don't even see any license issues, first of all you don't even > distribute it, the user who's building the module will already > have it along with his kernel source. And if you're using it to > compile (possibly binary) modules you want to distribute, you can > just use it just like gcc without any further obligations, so no > problem there either. (IANAL, of course) > I don't see any problems with kbuild, I was referring to vermagic.c. -- christian zander zander@minion.de - 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/