Re: Modules Standard, extended to kernel code
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
"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
Reply to: