Re: Modules Standard, extended to kernel code
Hello,
Noah, you are absolutely right.
And about this, do you know if there is any kind of propousal in this theme about a
standard for how to distribute and install modules that aren't in the kernel source
code?
How to create a task from this subject? I tried to look at the linuxbase pages but i
could't find anything...
thank you.
Pedro Bueno
Noah Romer wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Pedro Bueno wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think that enabling the linux kernel option CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, in some kind,
> > helps to deals with some modules since it makes the modules less dependent on
> > the kernel version. And there is another aspect that should be observed, that
> > is in user side. Planning a standard to kernel modules, we could have a
> > execellent choice to developers, as well to users, since, nowadays each module
> > developer create his own way to provide it, some uses rpm, some tar.gz, bz2,
> > with pure .c files with inside instructions to compile, or with Makefiles
> > files...
> > So , if there is no plan to create a standard for this issue, we really should
> > have a effort to create a propousal to it here in LSB.
> >
> > Pedro Bueno
>
> It seems like the two of you are talking about separate things. If I'm not
> mistaken, Pedro, you're talking about a standard for how to distribute and
> install modules that aren't in the kernel source code tarballs and David,
> you're talking about a standard interface in the kernel for driver writers
> to hook into. I don't know much about Pedro's suggestion, although it
> seems like it would fit w/in the concept of the LSB.
>
> As far as the kernel interface standard, David, have you taken a look at
> the linux-kernel mailing list archives?
> http://kt.linuxcare.com/kernel-traffic/index.epl provides summaries of the
> major threads each week and well as links to the actuall messages. This is
> a subject that comes up w/ some frequency on linux-kernel (and certainly
> seems beyond the scope of the LSB). If this is what you're talking about,
> you might find the discussions that have already taken place enlightening.
>
> > "Howell, David P" wrote:
> >
> > > To add in my 2 cents, specifically is there a standard planned or in the
> > > works
> > > for loadable or statically linked in kernel drivers and subsystems? I'm new
> > > here
> > > but come from a System 5/SVR4 background where there was a DDI/DKI standard
> > > for
> > > drivers that defined a set of kernel interfaces that a driver writer could
> > > assume
> > > was always going to be there in a kernel, with the same semantics across
> > > different
> > > architectures. This permitted VARs with kernel components in their
> > > applications
> > > to code their drivers and subsystems once and not have to recode for each
> > > release.
> > >
> > > Linux has application standards moving ahead for LSB, but I'm told that
> > > there is
> > > no such plan for a kernel driver/subsystem/module standard in LSB, and this
> > > seems
> > > contradictory. Here at Intel we ran into an issue with a driver that is
> > > produced
> > > by an Intel group being useful for only one release of a distribution (i.e.
> > > Red
> > > Hat 6.2) but could not be used with the previous point release (6.1) due to
> > > module
> > > versioning. I can't say for sure that there weren't internal kernel changes
> > > that
> > > make this necessary, but it calls out for a driver/subsystem/module standard
> > > that
> > > would at least allow a driver to work between point releases, as well as
> > > possibly
> > > extending compatibility to multiple vendor distributions running the same
> > > kernel
> > > major/minor version.
> > >
> > > Seems that if Linux is to capture more applications, part of this will have
> > > to
> > > include applications with kernel code in them. To not extend LSB to include
> > > this
> > > seems like an obvious mistake. Are their plans for this type of standard, or
> > > could
> > > there be?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pedro Bueno [mailto:bueno@ieee.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:03 PM
> > > To: lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org
> > > Subject: Modules Standard.
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > does anyone know if there is any kind of work in specification proposal
> > > to create Linux Modules. I mean, items like, for example, just rpm
> > > files, or Makefiles, or pre-compiled binaries...
> > > Thank you,
> > > Pedro Bueno
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mr. Pedro Bueno pb@bestlinux.net http://www.bestlinux.net
> > > SOT Finnish Software Engineering Ltd. http://www.sot.com
> > > Narva mnt. 7A, 10117, TALLINN , ESTONIA GSM: +372 53946419
> > >
> > > --
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> > > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
> > >
> > > --
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> > > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
> >
> > --
> > Mr. Pedro Bueno pb@bestlinux.net http://www.bestlinux.net
> > SOT Finnish Software Engineering Ltd. http://www.sot.com
> > Narva mnt. 7A, 10117, TALLINN , ESTONIA GSM: +372 53946419
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
> >
>
> Noah Romer |"Everyone is more or less mad on one point."
> klevin@eskimo.com | - Rudyard Kipling
> PGP key available |
> by finger or email |
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
--
Mr. Pedro Bueno pb@bestlinux.net http://www.bestlinux.net
SOT Finnish Software Engineering Ltd. http://www.sot.com
Narva mnt. 7A, 10117, TALLINN , ESTONIA GSM: +372 53946419
Reply to: