On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 02:07 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > [Re-sending to the correct list address.] >> > >> > On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 16:24 +0100, Camaleón wrote: >> >> El 2013-03-17 a las 14:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings escribió: >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 15:46 +0100, Camaleón wrote: >> >> >> >> (...) >> >> >> >> > > Using Debian's stock network driver is not an option for me (full report >> >> > > available here²) so I have to try with the latests drivers but now that >> >> > > "compat-drivers" are compiled the generated modules cannot be loaded. >> >> > > >> >> > > Is there any by-pass for this? >> >> > > >> >> > > ¹http://marc.info/?t=136351034300002&r=1&w=2 >> >> > > ²http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=664767 >> >> > >> >> > Talk to the compat-drivers developers. >> >> >> >> To be sincere, I don't think that's a user's role. >> >> >> >> I don't know what's going on with these drivers but if they are not >> >> supported by Debian at all it would be better for all of us (plain >> >> users and developers) to simply say it so to avoid wasting time and >> >> resources. >> > >> > I would like to support them, in fact more than that I would like to >> > integrate them into official packages. But there is no way we can >> > support an OOT module that defines symbols that we might need to add for >> > our own backports. As it is 'compat' will ironically cause >> > incompatibility with Debian's own kernel upgrades. >> > >> > Compat developers: please add a prefix (not 'compat', that one's already >> > taken!) >> >> We have been using compat_ for a while now to prefix a lot of our >> symbols without clashes for the 32-64 compat stuff, but sure -- we can >> use something else to help with any theoretical issues. Surprised >> Debian of all distributions would frankly have been affected given >> RHEL / SUSE didn't, but its OK, lets deal with it. > > The conflict that just showed up in Debian involved the 'i2c_bit_algo' > symbol which had no symbol prefix in 'compat'. We updated the in-tree > DRM drivers from 3.4.32 and started exporting the symbol from > i2c-algo-bit itself. > > I hadn't noticed that you already used the 'compat_' prefix for some > exported symbols and I'm not aware of any current conflict with the > 32-bit compatibility layer, but it seems plausible that it could happen > in future. Sure, let me know what you think of the proposed posted changes. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
