On 2013-07-29, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/28/13 11:57 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>> The current stable kernel is 3.10.4. Let's suppose that 3.10.5 comes
>> out tomorrow with some interesting patches to fs/xfs. Is it possible
>> using dkms to build the 3.10.5 version of the xfs module for a running
>> 3.10.4 kernel?
> "Probably / Maybe"
> It really depends on what changed from 3.10.4 to 3.10.5, but odds are,
> kernel interfaces did not change, so - probably fine. If not, you
> get to keep all the pieces, etc.
>> And if so, is there a way for the module to report its
>> own version?
> Say it with me: there is no xfs module version. :)
Well, wouldn't it be the same as the original kernel from which the code
was ripped? So in the above hypothetical, one could say that the xfs
"version" is 3.10.5. It's not *exactly*, of course, but if I were to
say "I'm running kernel 3.10.4 with xfs built from 3.10.5 using DKMS"
you'd probably know what I meant. You might then choose not to answer
questions because I've gone too far off the reservation.
Or, maybe, a different way of saying this is that the XFS version always
matches the kernel version it comes from. Then if you use code from one
kernel version in a different version it's at your own risk; one of the
consequences is that you need to document this discrepancy yourself.
> And taking kernel version X's xfs, and applying a bugfix patch, and
> rebuilding it against the same kernel headers should be fine. Still
> a little wizardry, but not bad for a kernel-savvy person.
Is that all it takes to be considered "wizardry"? Back In My Day (TM)
you had to mess with .config in order to get anything done! ;-)