Hi,
personally i need 2.6.24, and don't care much about 2.6.20, so i would not bother to drop support for this special version - We can however integrate patches, i'm sure someone will look at it if it is a trivial conversion.
Marek, i've tested your patches with all major kernel releases from 2.6.20 to 2.6.33. What i have seen is:
* 2.6.20 fails for various reasons * 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 show some warnings * all other kernel versions are fine
The warnings for 23 and 24 can be fixed by moving the *_read() defines from "< 2.6.25" to "< 2.6.23". If you integrate this modification into your patch, you will gain my blessing and my sign-off. :)
best regards, Simon
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:28:08AM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
Hi,
the current trunk contains some code which breaks our backward compatibility, especially the sysfs API seem to be troublesome. I made 2 patches that address the issue on my 2.6.21 test system. It would be nice if you could test them on your system as well. I'd be particularly interested in kernels older than 2.6.25. Does someone have a 2.6.20 system ?
At some point we have to start thinking about how many versions we want to support. Each new kernel brings more changes which need to be dealt with. Right now, the required effort is still at a sustainable level but the gap is growing. On one hand it is a nice playground to expand our knowledge about macros and demonstrate what nasty things you can do (see the second patch as an example). ;-) On the other hand it always requires a serious amount of time and effort. It only makes sense if at least some people are using it. Opinions ?
Regards, Marek