On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:34:24AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote: > >>If the type IDs in genunix change, I assume its elfhash changes. > >>Likewise, if the dependent modules change, their elfhashes will > >>change as well. > > > >As long as you're aware that this will happen to *every* ON module on > >essentially every genunix and ip change, then fine. Obviously, your > >updates will be correspondingly larger, but I suppose the aggregate > >package sizes aren't significant enough for the pain. > > This happens today, right?
No. There is no requirement for all kernel modules with uniquified CTF to be included in, or depend on, a patch containing a genunix/ip change. You would be introducing this requirement. > >Another downside worth mentioning is that ON modules will retain their > >special status - no other kernel module is allowed to use CTF > >uniquification, with the performance overhead that implies. > > Downside of what? Not re-engineering CTF? Downside of removing, or not using, the current labelling system CTF uniquification uses. You seem to be acting like I'm trying to stick a stick in the spokes of IPS. I'm not, I just want to make sure that the implications of dropping this feature are well-known. (I have a list of upsides as well, if you like.) regards, john _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
