From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 05:07:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF7F37B408 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 05:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37A143FAF for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 05:07:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from leimy2k@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin07-en2 [10.13.10.152]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h4SC7FiL020542 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 05:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mac.com (adsl-33-229-251.jan.bellsouth.net [67.33.229.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h4SC6E27012011; Wed, 28 May 2003 05:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 07:06:12 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: Terry Lambert From: David Leimbach In-Reply-To: <3ED455E5.55EE34DC@mindspring.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) cc: Q cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 12:07:18 -0000 On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 01:23 AM, Terry Lambert wrote: > Q wrote: >> I have been burnt by this in the past also. I think that it would be >> useful if you could allow kernel modules to be bound to a particular >> kernel "version/date/whatever", and have external modules refuse to >> load >> and/or complain if the kernel is upgraded. This should prevent >> unnecessary kernel panics when you upgrade. The Linux kernel has been >> doing this for years. > > The FreeBSD DDI/DKI is not well enough documented, let alone > versioned, let alone stable enough over time for this to work. > > Consider how long a third party binary-only driver would keep > working for someone following -current, and you will see the > problem. > I think for current all bets are off anyway. I think supporting a 3rd party driver should really only "have-to" support releases. Now I may have to re-evaluate that thought for a stable tree as there is a level of confidence there that everything else will probably still work... it could be tricky :) [just scrambling to put the worms back in the can] Dave