[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091120211837.GA22815@tuxdriver.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0500
From: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A generic kernel compatibilty code
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:53:51PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone and their mother reinvents the wheel when it comes to
> >> backporting kernel modules. It a painful job and it seems to me an
> >> alternative is possible. If we can write generic compatibilty code for
> >> a new routine introduced on the next kernel how about just merging it
> >> to the kernel under some generic compat module. This would be
> >> completey ignored by everyone using the stable kernel but can be
> >> copied by anyone doing backport work.
> >>
> >> So I'm thinking something as simple as a generic compat/comat.ko with
> >> compat-2.6.32.[ch] files.
> >
> > FWIW, I meant a compat-2.6.32.[ch] and compat-2.6.31.[ch] and so on.
> > All these would link to the compat.ko
>
> I supose this could juse be a separate tree with some generic
> compat.ko module. That might work better.
This is what I would suggest for pursuing this idea. Perhaps you
could split-off from compat-wireless, then make that tree depend on
the new tree (compat-core?)...
Hth...
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@...driver.com might be all we have. Be ready.
--
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