On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 19:29 +1200, Mike Honeyfield wrote: > On 5/17/05, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This only impacts binary modules, and in the process of porting those to > > 2.6 the vendor needs to "fix" this up just as well. That is the same for > > FC and RHEL. > > > > So you disagree that this is actually "experimental" as per the kernel config? yes I do. EXPERIMENTAL in the kernel config in practice is meaningless; it hardly ever gets removed even after years of high production use of stuff. I wonder if the EXPERIMENTAL got removed from EXT3 yet .. ;) > Yes, RH's choice in kernel configure option is theirs and yes, it is > true, binary only vendor can "fix" (not sure waht the quotes imply), > we have "fixed" our drivers. Worth noting, our driver was written for > 2.6 and in RHEL it was broken, but not other platforms we support, > like debian and suse. I assume that since your driver was written with linux in mind, that it is gpl, right? So then you wouldn't have this problem.... (if it's not, make sure your lawyers have read the COPYING.modules file from the kernel rpms) > However, I was curious because it seemed ironic to possibly break ABI > for binary only vendors in the enterprise product. The linux kernel has no ABI. So it's also not possible to break it. SLES uses this option too afaik, and it has been there for a long time in 2.6, any driver not capable of running with it is of course very buggy or at least not adjusted to 2.6 properly. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
