[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.019 / U:19.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site