Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Aug 2004 00:54:26 +0100 (IST) | From | Dave Airlie <> | Subject | Re: DRM function pointer work.. |
| |
[lk ppl have a look at the start of this thread in the dri-devel archives on marc.theaimsgroup.com...]
> I guess one (unpleasant) way to make it work would be to add the version to > all the symbols in the device-independent layer. Instead of drm_foo you'd > have drm_foo_100 or drm_foo_101 or whatever. You could then have multiple > modules loaded or a module loaded with a built-in version. I'm not sure how > happy that would make the kernel maintainers (not to mention how happy it > would make us). :( It's basically like what we have now, except the current > code has the device's name add to all the symbols and is built into the > device-dependent module. Ugh, ugh. > > How do other multi-layer kernel modules handle this? For example, how does > agpgart or iptables do it?
they don't let crazy people build stuff outside the tree as far as I know ... also they make you build against the current kernel headers, so we would have to have the drm headers in include/linux/drm or somewhere like that, and build the modules against them, but then what happens if you want to build a new drm module out of tree..
two things make my head hurt, 32/64 interfaces and versioning.., maybe some more experienced kernel heads could join this and tell us the best way to go?
Dave.
-- David Airlie, Software Engineer http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie pam_smb / Linux DECstation / Linux VAX / ILUG person
- 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/
| |