Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261622AbVDNWvW (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:51:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261625AbVDNWvW (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:51:22 -0400 Received: from vsmtp3alice.tin.it ([212.216.176.143]:63899 "EHLO vsmtp3.tin.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261622AbVDNWvA (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:51:00 -0400 Message-ID: <425EF2A3.1070007@tin.it> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:45:55 -0500 From: "Franco \"Sensei\"" Reply-To: Sensei User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041207 Thunderbird/1.0 Mnenhy/0.7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Horst von Brand CC: David Lang , Krzysztof Halasa , Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [INFO] Kernel strict versioning References: <200504142034.j3EKYqmS005113@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> In-Reply-To: <200504142034.j3EKYqmS005113@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig89AACFC4BF2B7F58D8CE564E" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3849 Lines: 103 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig89AACFC4BF2B7F58D8CE564E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Horst von Brand wrote: >>No I'm not confusing. As long as the .config has an influence on the >>makefiles I get different symbols names. > > Nope. I don't understand. The .config drives the kernel build, I don't get XFS functions and names if I don't compile it. I have different symbol names... At least, that's what I understand... and that's what happens... Never the same names on different kernels. > And kernels compiled with one compiler are different than those compiled > with another. And if you have preemption they are different. Don't forget > about clasic i386 vs i486 vs ... vs i686 (spinlocks generate different > code!). Then let's consider memory split: 2/2, 3/1, 3.5/0.5, ... Now throw > in assorted debugging options. On some architectures you have several > possible (reasonable!) page sizes. Yes, ok. > Define "simple environment". Even Red Hat (they are /very/ interested in a > single kernel image, as it cuts down testing and bug tracking etc!) ships > half a dozen different kernels, tailored for different configurations. And > you'll find external modules (like for NTFS) compiled separately for each > of them. Yes, but as long as you keep with the same configuration, no problem should arise in changing the kernel version. > Or having /your/ standard kernel on all 100 machines, compile once and copy > around. No need for /me/ to run your exact same configuration. I probably expressed myself badly. I don't mean anyone having the same configuration... why on earth should it be? >>Source compatibility is there. > > Sort of. I hope! :) > And A doesn't have some options I'd like, and others you loathe. That's why you recompile, but why should you throw your other modules not included in the kernel release? >> creating the kernel with additions and patches, and >>distributing them. Modules .A should work on .B, > > Iff nothing changes. That isn't usually the case. That's weird... why should things really change so drastically if the external interface still remains the same? It's probably a matter of abstraction... > The problem is that giving that guarantee costs developer time and > flexibility. The gain (given that source for recompilation is freely > available) is so minuscule that the consensus is that it just isn't worth > any extra hassle /at all/. Ok. > And the decision to design thusly is completely conscicious, it is not a > random "it just turned out this way by mistake". > >>I just see advantages on ABI, and I think it's not bad talking about it... > > I see many disadvantages to ABI, and it wouldn't be bad to look at them too. I'd really like to know... I'm naive? Yes :) Of course, other than ``more work'', but technical disadvantages... -- Sensei --------------enig89AACFC4BF2B7F58D8CE564E Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCXvKm4LBKhYmYotsRAouoAJ46W3clMK7D9NgmJ/iYvhfhpX38PACfeLRf gO8+yMQgxqyM57NbG/SxZrg= =5Xam -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig89AACFC4BF2B7F58D8CE564E-- - 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/