On 08/02/2024 10:08, John Garry wrote:
On 05/02/2024 23:10, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
I think what you can contribute are:
- Explore the UTS_RELEASE users, and check if you can get rid of it.
Unfortunately I expect resistance for this. I also expect places like FW
loader it is necessary. And when this is used in sysfs, people will say
that it is part of the ABI now.
How about I send the patch to update to use init_uts_ns and mention also
that it would be better to not use at all, if possible? I can cc you.
OK.
As I mentioned in the previous reply, the replacement is safe
for builtin code.
When you touch modular code, please pay a little more care,
because UTS_RELEASE and init_utsname()->release
may differ when CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y.
Are you saying that we may have a different release version kernel and
module built with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y, and the module was using
UTS_RELEASE for something? That something may be like setting some info
in a sysfs file, like in this example:
static ssize_t target_core_item_version_show(struct config_item *item,
char *page)
{
return sprintf(page, "Target Engine Core ConfigFS Infrastructure %s"
" on %s/%s on "UTS_RELEASE"\n", TARGET_CORE_VERSION,
utsname()->sysname, utsname()->machine);
}
And the intention is to use the module codebase release version and not
the kernel codebase release version. Hence utsname() is used for
.sysname and .machine, but not .release .
Hi Masahiro,
Can you comment on whether I am right about CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, above?
Thanks,
John
