Re: kernel structures in 2.0.29->2.0.30

Gordon Oliver (
Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:09:14 -0400 (CST)

...Raul Miller says...:
> A better way of describing it is that the kernel module system
> is a view into the guts of Linux. As Linux evolves, the view
> is subject to change. This should not surprise anyone.

What is surprising, and bad, is that the data changes between stable
versions. Unfortunately, if the internals of a structure change there
is no way to correctly handle that for a module if it accesses that
structure. If the module were written to handle this case, it might work,
but the penalty would be huge. Imagine a file system that cannot directly
access an inode.

Any change that changes a _header_ file should be subject to extreme
scrutiny in stable releases. Unless there is no other way to fix a problem,
and the problem is critical, it should not be accepted. I.e. the public
interface should not be allowed to change...

Perhaps it would help to say 2.0.x0 is a stable tested release (i.e. 2.0.10,
2.0.20, 2.0.30 etc.) and 2.0.xy if a stable, somewhat tested release.

> Once again: there's no reason that source code can't be written
> to fit between the AFS module and the various linux kernel
> versions. This would be an easier task if AFS had been engineered
> for this approach, but it's doable even now.

probably not if critical structures have changed...