lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [INFO] Kernel strict versioning
    David Lang wrote:
    > some config changes are additions, some redefine things.
    >
    > you are mistakeing the .config file for a symbol table.

    No I'm not confusing. As long as the .config has an influence on the
    makefiles I get different symbols names.

    > for example if you compile a kernel with SMP=y you get different code
    > then if you compile with SMP=n
    >
    > if you have the same kernel version on identical machines, but with the
    > SMP option different on the two different machines you cannot use the
    > same module binary on both of them.

    Of course, but It's cleare that machines with SMP are different from a
    simple mono-cpu.

    It's not an issue talking about smp vs. not-smp. Let's talk about a
    machine: it's useless arguing about Cray while I'm talking about a
    simple environment.

    Every kernel has always the distinction about smp. So it's not a big
    problem.

    > you would have an ABI for that kernel image, compiled with those
    > options, and with that compiler. if you change any of those things then
    > your modules won't work (you have a different ABI

    Of course, as I stated, it's a distro's care to use the same gcc and
    same switches....

    > what you are missing is that nobody has any interest in supporting a
    > kernel ABI, even within a single kernel version. there are just too many
    > advantages to changeing fundamantal things in the kernel depending on
    > the config options.

    An advantage is the total freedom about the code. Ok, I know. But as
    long as the kernel grows, in size and in its use, something more should
    be considered. ABI is a step forward companies and people like me in
    handling linux easily. API and data structure stability should be
    something in mind, since breaking compatibility from 2.6.8 to 2.6.8.1
    causes big troubles to anyone who's mantaining many machines. And if you
    are in big environments, you probably use modules which are not in
    vanilla, and will never be, like OpenAFS.

    Finding a bug in the kernel source and patching it, must be a careful
    step, because if I have to mantain 100 machines, and I know that
    applying the patch will result in a broken kernel modules, I'm not happy
    with it. I must go manually on each machine, apply the patch, recompile
    the modules... Makes me think about NOT applying the patch.

    > I don't know why the default location for the modules, but again you are
    > assuming that you CAN have a single vmlinuz-2.6 kernel file for all
    > machines of a given arch.
    >
    > you can't.

    I think we can. Freedom in developing source code is not necessarily
    stealing bricks from someone's feet :)

    > there are just too many config options that change the internals of the
    > kernel (locking, function call formats, CPU type optmizations, etc) for
    > you to just have one.

    Source compatibility is there. Now, you're talking about issues which
    are not your buisness: a binary distribution must take care of how the
    kernel it's compiled. As long as it uses the same gcc and switches, it's ok.

    Practically, if suse has kernel-2.6.A and kernel-modules-2.6.A it knows
    how they're compiled, and they work everywhere. Of course, it has also
    kernel-2.6.A-SMP and its modules.

    When 2.6.B is released, using ABI will just result in another
    compilation, creating the kernel with additions and patches, and
    distributing them. Modules .A should work on .B, like I do with OpenAFS,
    Every kernel update shouldn't break the magic :)

    > but 2.6.11.7 is not nessasarily binary compatable with 2.6.11.7, let
    > alone something drasticly different (say 2.6.11.6)

    Sure, because it's not designed to be so.

    I just see advantages on ABI, and I think it's not bad talking about it...

    --
    Sensei <mailto:senseiwa@tin.it> <pgp:8998A2DB>
    <icqnum:241572242>
    <yahoo!:sensei_sen>
    <msn-id:sensei_sen@hotmail.com>
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-14 18:59    [W:5.521 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site