From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 9 22:38:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C20637B40A for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 270FAAE2AB; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:38:46 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Matthew Emmerton Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions about kernel/userspace backwards compatibilty between minor revisions Message-ID: <20020610053846.GF88163@elvis.mu.org> References: <00c801c21025$8d61dab0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00c801c21025$8d61dab0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i 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 * Matthew Emmerton [020609 19:21] wrote: > 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? 4.x should be pretty compatible with respect to 4.2 to 4.3 to 4.4 and so on, if you come across any jitter then you can probably use __FreeBSD_version from sys/param.h. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message