Q wrote: > I have been burnt by this in the past also. I think that it would be > useful if you could allow kernel modules to be bound to a particular > kernel "version/date/whatever", and have external modules refuse to load > and/or complain if the kernel is upgraded. This should prevent > unnecessary kernel panics when you upgrade. The Linux kernel has been > doing this for years. > > Seeya...Q > For the love of god, no! This creates a support nightmare. What happens when a user installs his system and recompiles the kernel without changing the source at all? His modules won't work, but there is no reason why they shouldn't. What if one of those now non-working modules is a driver for his hard drive? Scott > On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 12:17, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > >>On Tue, 27 May 2003 22:13, David Leimbach wrote: >> >>>>However the idea is that all GPL infected stuff be isolated, allowing a >>>>fully working kernel without GPL stuff in there. >>> >>>Sounds like a "kernel module" is the way to go then. Perhaps it could >>>exist in the ports tree instead of the mainline kernel sources :). I >>>know >>>I'd be happy with that... the problem is hosting the driver since I am >>>sure >>>"patching" it won't be enough to map the linux innards to freebsd's. >> >>There are already a number of kernel modules in the ports tree (eg nvidia >>drivers, ltmdm modem driver, aureal sound driver, etc). >> >>The only downside is that there are no hooks into the build process so you >>have to be VERY careful when you update your kernel, or you get panics :( >> >>(I found this recently, some change broke all of my 3rd party modules and >>caused panics when I tried to load them). >> >>I would really like some way of getting external modules rebuilt at the same >>time as buildkernel and friends, otherwise you have to remember to rebuild >>the affected ports, and it is a pain in the ass.Received on Tue May 27 2003 - 18:16:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:09 UTC