From owner-freebsd-current Sun Apr 23 11:55:13 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B3637B52A; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA63309; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200004231855.LAA63309@apollo.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux emulation scripting fix to be committed to 5.x and 4.x wednesday References: <45496.956515071@critter.freebsd.dk> <200004231846.LAA63231@apollo.backplane.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday... that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be recompiled and I'd rather not force people to do that twice. The SMP patchset, in fact, requires that all kernel modules be recompiled due to the locks that were removed from the spl*() macros. This is something I would contemplate doing for 4.0->4.1, but not something I would consider for 4.1 onward. Even though 4.0 is the most stable .0 release we've ever had, it's still a .0. I wonder if it makes sense to add a release id to the module header and have the module loader refuse (unless forced) to load modules that are out-of-date with the kernel? -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message