From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 9 09:22:58 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAD5106564A; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:22:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dfr@rabson.org) Received: from itchy.rabson.org (unknown [IPv6:2002:50b1:e8f2:1::143]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B308FC1A; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:22:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dfr@rabson.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:909f:1:21b:63ff:feb8:5abc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:909f:1:21b:63ff:feb8:5abc]) by itchy.rabson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6483FA8; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:21:31 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: From: Doug Rabson To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200809081412.42281.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:22:57 +0100 References: <200808281530.m7SFU3h7013986@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080902.132447.652861696.imp@bsdimp.com> <200809081412.42281.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, vova@fbsd.ru, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, attilio@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org, amistry@am-productions.biz, "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: cvs commit: VOP_ATTRIB ... and sysutils/fusefs-kmod X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:22:59 -0000 On 8 Sep 2008, at 19:12, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 02 September 2008 03:24:47 pm M. Warner Losh wrote: >> In message: >> >> Robert Watson writes: >> : 8-CURRENT kernels should reject old modules from loading unless >> : __FreeBSD_version hasn't been bumped. >> >> Sure would be nice if the error message were more helpful as to the >> cause. The current behavior is a bit, ummm, cryptic... > > Yes it is. I want to fix this but it requires overhauling some of > the basic > assumptions of the kernel module stuff and as such is tied up in my > desire to > really fix module versions (as per my mail to arch@ a while back). Which I forgot to reply to. For the record, I completely agree with your suggested change to module version semantics.