> > and the modules are stored in /lib/modules/2.0.29-ISS.
> >
> > I know that this is breaking the module utilities a little bit
> > (have been fixed already). I was wondering how of a problem is it causing
> > to other people. I hope that indeed, it is causing little or no problem.
> > If this was the case, then we could use the same naming to distinguish SMP
> > kernel from none SMP. So SMP modules would go in /lib/modules/x.y.z-SMP
> > and so on.
> >
> > So maybe this would be good for 2.1 to have this. This would allow
> > distribution maker to deliver precompiled SMP kernel without having to
> > bother with naming conflict.
>
> I really would like to see the module utilities be changed to allow this.
> we really need sometimes to switch between SMP and non-SMP on dual-PPros!
> and please get this into 2.0 too because I don't like to use hacker kernels
> for production just because of this small feature...
Right now there seems to be a big push for new 2.0 features. I'm not sure
this is so healthy. Perhaps users (as opposed to silly testers) should be
told to merely wait till 2.2 so that something _good_ with all the
modifications in could get out a bit sooner. Maybe not as soon as a 2.0
backport, but in the end it'd probably be worth it. After all, 1.2 only
went up to .13, but 2.0 is already up to .29.
Greg Alexander
http://www.cia-g.com/~sietch/