Subject: Re: LKM versioning
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Matthew Mondor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/20/2003 22:26:34
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 05:44:05PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> But I think it's evident we need more than just simple. While I don't mind
> having the kernel version be in there - it certainly should - I think we
> already know we need more, but we aren't sure what.
> I'd say we need:
> a) LKM version (so we can pull the full rug out from under us in the
> b) Kernel version
> c) A string of add-on defines.
Is this third (c) clause made so that the module knows which capabilities
are required and must have been compiled into the kernel it is to attach