Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:29:21 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] better i386 CPU selection |
| |
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:46:30AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message <20030907112813.GQ14436@fs.tum.de> you write: > > - @Rusty: > > what's your opinion on making MODULE_PROC_FAMILY in > > include/asm-i386/module.h some kind of bitmask? > > The current one is readable, which is good, and Linus asked for it, > which makes it kinda moot. And really, if you compile a module with > M686 and insert it in a kernel with M586, *WHATEVER* scheme you we use > for CPU seleciton, I want the poor user to have to use "modprobe -f".
I agree, my thoughts go in the direction
bit 0 CPU_386 bit 1 CPU_486 bit 2 CPU_586 ...
And you should need a "modprobe -f" if the bitmask in the module differs from the bitmask in the kernel.
> Hope that clarifies, > Rusty.
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |