Subject: Re: LKM versioning
To: Matthew Mondor <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/21/2003 15:21:32
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> 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
> > future)
> > 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
For now, it should be an exact string. We should (somewhere) list what
defines get added in, and you always build the string in the same manner.
For now, we just do an exact match.
Later on, we can do some more sophisticated matching that realizes that
just because the kernel lists FOO while the LKM doesn't that that's not a
problem. But that we can do later...