[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A519C8.5000407@mbligh.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:52:24 -0800
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...l.ru>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>,
Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
Subject: Re: .version keeps being updated
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:21:51 -0800 (PST)
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> This new behavior of the kernel build system is likely to
>>>> make developers angry pretty quickly.
>>> That might motivate them to fix it ;)
>> Actually, how about just removing the incrementing version count entirely?
>
> I use it pretty commonly to answer the question "did I remember to install
> that new kernel I just built before I rebooted"? By comparing `uname -a'
> with $TOPDIR/.version.
Yup, we need to do the same thing in automated testing. Especially when
you're doing lilo -R, and don't know if you ended up fscking or panicing
during attempted reboot to new kernel.
Better would be a checksum of the vmlinux vs the running kernel text,
but that seems to be impossible due to code rewriting. Could we embed
a checksum in a little /proc file for this?
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists