Subject: Re: LKM kernel version mismatch
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/01/2003 08:38:42
> | it installs a syscall that ignores all its arguments,
> | does nothing else, and then returns. all so that i have one. it,
> | therefore, *CANNOT* fail to match any api in the kernel, because it
> | doesn't use any.
>Hmm? Isn't there an API in the kernel being used to install a new syscall?
um...yeah, though i would expect that if *that* changed, the version
of the lkm interface would refuse to load *any* module, not just those
that are three days too old...
>While I don't much believe in LKMs for available source systems, I do
>however understand what you're requesting I think - that is, a more finely
>grained way to tell just what API may have altered, so LKMs could
>determine whether they will still work, or need to be recompiled. The
>current "nothing has changed" (which is often a lie anyway), or "anything
>might have changed" is a little crude.
maybe something like that, yes.
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."