[B.A.T.M.A.N.] sysfs compat
simon.wunderlich at s2003.tu-chemnitz.de
Mon May 3 22:40:20 CEST 2010
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. :)
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:28:08AM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
> 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 ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the B.A.T.M.A.N