[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080924193617.GA13888@x200.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:36:17 +0400
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Paweł Sikora <pluto@...k.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kernel-abi] symbol versioning vs. out-of-tree modules.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:07:59PM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> with out-of-tree kernel modules we (users and linux distributions)
> have a problem - with every frequent kernel release we need
> to rebuild them all due to vermagic and possible abi changes.
> this leads to lot of useless work (bumping rpm specs releases,
> preparing rpm packages and so on).
That's your price for using out-of-tree junk.
> naturally we could workaround the modprobe vermagic errors
> but we currently can't detect the big-bang kernel abi changes.
And never will be able to.
> e.g., some kernel function changes its parameter list while
> the exported function(symbol) name still staying unchanged.
> finally we get a modprobe-big-bang.
*bang*
> in fact, we can't use a c++ symbol name mangling to avoid
> such problems but kernel build system could use a linker script
> to versioning symbols (like glibc/libgcc). during the abi change,
> kernel developers could just bump the symbol version and
> external modules could be refused during loading with
> 'unresolved symbol' error which is imho much better solution
> that an oops.
So kernel developers should waste time thinking if some change will
result in some innumerable junk being broken, resulting in symbol
version bump?
> is it acceptable and possible to introducing such solution?
No. Don't even bother.
--
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