From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 9 19:21:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts13.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D0337B412 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xena.gsicomp.on.ca ([65.95.179.11]) by tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020610022137.WBDZ12468.tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net@xena.gsicomp.on.ca> for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:21:37 -0400 Received: from hermes (hermes.gsicomp.on.ca [192.168.0.18]) by xena.gsicomp.on.ca (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g5A17nb75817 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 21:07:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Message-ID: <00c801c21025$8d61dab0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> From: "Matthew Emmerton" To: Subject: Questions about kernel/userspace backwards compatibilty between minor revisions Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:21:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I' m working on getting OpenAFS working 100% on FreeBSD, and while reviewing the first set of my patches with the OpenAFS maintainer, some questions about kernel/userspace backwards compatibility came about. More specifically, OpenAFS was first ported on FreeBSD 4.2, and as a result, all config files (autoconf and 3 static files) are configured to look for FreeBSD 4.2. The CVS maintainer's current idea is is to duplicate all of these config files and autconf logic for FreeBSD 4.[013456]. This will add a bunch of _identical_ files to the CVS repo and add a whole lot of unneccessary autoconf checks that IMHO, are unneeded. This begs the question, is a check for FreeBSD 4.x sufficient enough from a userland perspective? What about from a kernel perspective (for kernel modules)? From my observations (I compiled the userland on 4.[236] with no problems), I think that a check for 4.x should be sufficient for userland and kernel modules, but if any kernel hacking is involved (as is done in net/arla), finer-grained checking will be required. Can anyone confirm or deny this? -- Matt Emmerton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message