lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: SET_MODULE_OWNER?
On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 05:45:01PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> It is all very well to insist that SET_MODULE_OWNER() remains so you
> can take 2.4 drivers and easily compile them for 2.2... but why is
> that the benchmark? I can't take 2.4 drivers and do that, because I
> want to support 2.0 as well, so I bite the bullet and make the
> necessary changes for broader compatibility.

You can do 2.0 compat with kcompat. Just needs a couple more compat
macros in kcompat tarball. I grant you that net drivers are much more
resilient across kernel versions, and are easier to make portable across
the various kernel API changes -- precisely because we've managed to
keep the core interfaces fairly stable, logic- and locking-wise.
SET_MODULE_OWNER is just one more piece of this conscious effort.


> So.. back to a point. Is 2.2 compilability (with the help of kcompat)
> one of the goals to aim for in 2.5 drivers generally? Or is this
> specifically meant for the network drivers which you support?

In general, the mainline kernel has two conflicting goals:
* maintain source back-compat as long as it is reasonable
* keep back-compat garbage to a minimum, eliminating it where possible

It really comes down to a maintainer decision, unless there is an
overriding decision to purposefully break source back-compat.

To answer your question specifically, SET_MODULE_OWNER eases source
back-compat in general, but it's main user is network drivers.

Jeff



-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site