From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: module compiler version check still needed?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:45:14 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>, Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>,
       linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <31645.1155445159@ocs10w.ocs.com.au> <200608140659.49462.ak@suse.de> <20060814053831.GA23871@mars.ravnborg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060814053831.GA23871@mars.ravnborg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200608140745.14435.ak@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 974
Lines: 24

On Monday 14 August 2006 07:38, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 06:59:49AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>  > 
> > > Will we remember to add the check back in when we introduce new
> > > dependencies on compiler versions?
> > 
> > If something breaks it be readded. I see it only as a special
> > hack for some extraordinary, and hopefully these problems won't happen again.
> What we should add should be some kind of cabability mask.

It would be probably overkill.

> There is no need to require that modules are built with exactly the same
> compiler as the kernel when it is only a very few compiler versions that
> causes layout/ABI differences.

On i386/x86-64 that's not the case anymore as far as I know.

-Andi
-
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/