In message <957BD1C2BF3CD411B6C500A0C944CA2601AA1377@pdsmsx32.pd.intel.com> you
write:
> Dear Rusty,
> IMHO, try_old_version can tell kernel release better with this
> patch, don't you? ;->
> - Louis
I prefer, in principle, to test for features, not kernel versions.
What about 2.1, for example?
I've changed the check to sys_create_module(NULL, 0) != -ENOSYS,
instead, which should cover everything.
Now, why do you want /proc/ksyms exactly? I'm not hugely opposed to
it, but it's rarely what people actually want, since it contains only
exported symbols.
My plan was to change the format of /proc/modules slightly to make it
extensible (patch on my page), then add the "start of module"
parameter, which should allow ksymoops and oprofile to handle modules
cleanly again (although ksymoops is less urgent since CONFIG_KALLSYMS
does such a nice job for most things).
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 22:00:12 EST