On 2013-07-29, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/28/13 11:57 PM, Keith Keller wrote: >> >> The current stable kernel is 3.10.4. Let's suppose that 3.10.5 comes >> out tomorrow with some interesting patches to fs/xfs. Is it possible >> using dkms to build the 3.10.5 version of the xfs module for a running >> 3.10.4 kernel? > > "Probably / Maybe" > > It really depends on what changed from 3.10.4 to 3.10.5, but odds are, > kernel interfaces did not change, so - probably fine. If not, you > get to keep all the pieces, etc. Sure. :) >> And if so, is there a way for the module to report its >> own version? > > Say it with me: there is no xfs module version. :) Well, wouldn't it be the same as the original kernel from which the code was ripped? So in the above hypothetical, one could say that the xfs "version" is 3.10.5. It's not *exactly*, of course, but if I were to say "I'm running kernel 3.10.4 with xfs built from 3.10.5 using DKMS" you'd probably know what I meant. You might then choose not to answer questions because I've gone too far off the reservation. Or, maybe, a different way of saying this is that the XFS version always matches the kernel version it comes from. Then if you use code from one kernel version in a different version it's at your own risk; one of the consequences is that you need to document this discrepancy yourself. > And taking kernel version X's xfs, and applying a bugfix patch, and > rebuilding it against the same kernel headers should be fine. Still > a little wizardry, but not bad for a kernel-savvy person. Is that all it takes to be considered "wizardry"? Back In My Day (TM) you had to mess with .config in order to get anything done! ;-) --keith -- kkeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
