OT: Re: kernel versionning problem

[Thomas M Steenholdt]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 07:12:29PM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 05:19:24PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>>> "TE" == Tanguy Eric <eric.tanguy at univ-nantes.fr> writes:
>>> TE> http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2965
>>>
>>> Blah, blah, only breaks on Fedora, blah blah, Fedora people don't know
>>> how to behave.
>>>
>>> So exactly what is it that Fedora is doing wrong here?
>> The problem is that the rt2x00 driver assumes that there is an API 
>> difference between kernels < 2.6.20 and >= 2.6.20.  In truth there is 
>> no guarantee of a stable API at all in Linux, and that keying off 
>> LINUX_VERSION_CODE is next to useless.  If you patch the kernel at 
>> all, what version does it become?  Perhaps one API changed to be like 
>> Linus' 2.6.20 due to your patch(es), but another API didn't change and 
>> is still like Linus' 2.6.19.  An out-of-tree driver that keys off 
>> LINUX_VERSION_CODE can never get this right.  You could change the 
>> version code to fix one out-of-tree driver, but then that breaks the 
>> other.
> 
> Exactly.  This is something external driver maintainers just have to deal
> with if their driver isn't upstream¹.
> 
> josh
> 
> ¹ Have is said the word "upstream" enough in this thread?  No?  Repeat after
> me... "Upstream, Upstream, it's our way.  Upstream, Upstream anything else
> will ruin your day."²
> 
> ² I apologize for my crappy cheer.
> 

Not crappy, but spot on ;-D

/Thomas