On Sep 26, 2012, at 00:09 , Ken Dreyer wrote: > Re-reading through the kabi thread[1] from last month, I'm trying to > understand: Is kABI tracking a lost cause with OpenAFS? Is it just > better to rebuild for every kernel update?
To me, that seems to be the bottom line :-( > My small experience with kabi kmod packages is limited to ATI's video > drivers and OpenAFS. It has worked sometimes, but other times I've had > to rebuild against RHEL 6's newer kernels in order to get a module to > work properly. I'm wondering what's the best direction overall. To my understanding: Unless a module uses whitelisted symbols only, kabi-tracking kmod's aren't safe across minor EL6 releases, at least. They may be safe within minor releases. Alas, the current way of packaging does not even support that kind of use at all: There's no way to have more than one module installed at a time, and the single module will be made available to kernels in which it may render the system completely unusable, or cause any other kind of problems. As Simon pointed out, this could well affect data integrity, making the issue really serious in the openafs case. Taking the risk may be ok for a display driver. For a filesystem, it probably isn't. - Stephan > - Ken > > [1] https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-devel/2012-August/018944.html _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
