Re: DRM function pointer work..

[Dave Airlie]

[lk ppl have a look at the start of this thread in the dri-devel archives
on marc.theaimsgroup.com...]

> I guess one (unpleasant) way to make it work would be to add the version to
> all the symbols in the device-independent layer.  Instead of drm_foo you'd
> have drm_foo_100 or drm_foo_101 or whatever.  You could then have multiple
> modules loaded or a module loaded with a built-in version.  I'm not sure how
> happy that would make the kernel maintainers (not to mention how happy it
> would make us). :(  It's basically like what we have now, except the current
> code has the device's name add to all the symbols and is built into the
> device-dependent module.  Ugh, ugh.
>
> How do other multi-layer kernel modules handle this?  For example, how does
> agpgart or iptables do it?

they don't let crazy people build stuff outside the tree as far as I know
... also they make you build against the current kernel headers, so we
would have to have the drm headers in include/linux/drm or somewhere like
that, and build the modules against them, but then what happens if you
want to build a new drm module out of tree..

two things make my head hurt, 32/64 interfaces and versioning.., maybe
some more experienced kernel heads could join this and tell us the best
way to go?

Dave.

-- 
David Airlie, Software Engineer
http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie
pam_smb / Linux DECstation / Linux VAX / ILUG person

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/