Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:18:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-Connect.Net> To: dg@root.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, David Greenman <dg@root.com> Subject: Re: A Desparate Plea for Help... Message-ID: <XFMail.970429174652.Shimon@i-Connect.Net> In-Reply-To: <199704290713.AAA11846@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi David Greenman; On 29-Apr-97 you wrote: > >unplugged. I am sure we have something like that already. Another > thing > >can > >be (again, if it is not there already) is a strict versioning option, > which > >even linux has; It allows the kernel modules loader to verify that a > given > >module is of the proper/matching version before loading. > > This has been planned since the beginning, but as of yet noone has > implemented it. At this point adding it might be a waste of time since > we are looking at completely replacing the existing LKM system. You guys know much more about this than I do. My suggestion would be to have a mechnism that allows multiple versions. Stabilizing the interface so that versioning is not critical is nice but will never answer all the questions. Maybe the modules need to be (short term) moved to the kernel source tree, so that make install in the sys/compile/FOO will a compilation of the lkm's and install the lkm's in /lkm/FOO. the kernel actually can demads its modules to come, then from /lkm/FOO. Now if one will copy a file from /lkm/BAR to /lkm/FOO, we will have a situation just as bad as we have today. Simon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.970429174652.Shimon>