Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:19:27 -0600 (MDT) | From | James Bourne <> | Subject | Re: Oops: ptrace fix buggy |
| |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jörn Engel wrote:
> So basically, neither the existing EXTRAVERSION nor my new FIXLEVEL > are checked. Any code could potentially break with -ac1 to -ac2 or > with .1 to .2. > > Did anyone experience such problems with -ac already? There are far > more changes in -ac than there are in your patch.
Which brings the point as to why use a new variable unless you are going to actually modify LINUX_VERSION_CODE with it. It actually makes more sense to just use EXTRAVERSION for this then.
Now, using EXTRAVERSION = .2 wouldn't be unrealistic...
Regards James Bourne
> > Driver compilation should not be an issue. Change the Makefile and > version.h should be changed as well, so any code depending on > version.h will be rebuild, whether necessary or not. > > Module load sounds unrealistic for .[123...], as you shouldn't change > any interfaces with fixes. But it might be a real problem for -ac. > > Jörn > > PS: Or for -aa, -dj, -mm or whatever. It's just an example. > >
-- James Bourne | Email: jbourne@hardrock.org Unix Systems Administrator | WWW: http://www.hardrock.org Custom Unix Programming | Linux: The choice of a GNU generation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "All you need's an occasional kick in the philosophy." Frank Herbert
- 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/
| |