From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May 28 05:12:24 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF17A37B401
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 28 May 2003 05:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9DA43F3F
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 28 May 2003 05:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee)
Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.12.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h4SCCCBA045825;
	Wed, 28 May 2003 15:12:16 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee)
Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost)h4SCCBq4045822;
	Wed, 28 May 2003 15:12:12 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:12:11 +0300 (EEST)
From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
To: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ED4294B.4040108@btc.adaptec.com>
Message-ID: <20030528151123.X40030-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Q <q_dolan@yahoo.com.au>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 12:12:25 -0000


On Tue, 27 May 2003, Scott Long wrote:

> Q wrote:
> > I have been burnt by this in the past also. I think that it would be
> > useful if you could allow kernel modules to be bound to a particular
> > kernel "version/date/whatever", and have external modules refuse to load
> > and/or complain if the kernel is upgraded. This should prevent
> > unnecessary kernel panics when you upgrade. The Linux kernel has been
> > doing this for years.
> >
> > Seeya...Q
> >
>
> For the love of god, no!  This creates a support nightmare.  What
> happens when a user installs his system and recompiles the kernel
> without changing the source at all?  His modules won't work, but
> there is no reason why they shouldn't.  What if one of those now
> non-working modules is a driver for his hard drive?

if you didn't change the code, no change to version => modules continue to
work?

>
> Scott
>