Garrett D'Amore wrote > Jürgen Keil wrote: > > The putback for 6711665 did break kqemu for me, > > because the kernel module was compiled on bits before > > the 6711665 putback, and the qemu application that is > > using the ioctl was compiled after the putback. > > The old kernel module didn't understand the new ioctl > > codes any more... > > > > So, with the putback for 6711665 we have a small > > binary incompatibility. > > > Ouch. How much of a concern is this (for this > particular case)?
Not much, I'd say. I guess we could even add some extra code to the kqemu kernel module to support both the old and the new KQEMU_EXEC ioctl request code. Otherwise users shouldn't mix the kernel module and the user level application. Either both have to be compiled on a system before 6711665, or both have to be compiled on a system after 6711665. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
