Re: [PAE support] Types + cosmetic fixes

[Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>]

On Wed Feb 24 2010 at 13:03:26 +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:59:33AM +0000, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:16:56AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm not sure what the effect to configure and similar scripts would be.
> > > If this is for modules, I think this needs more though. I suspect some
> > > kernel build options can also cause ABI changes which can cause modules
> > > to fail, so modules should really be per kernel (at last for now, once
> > > we have a documented API useable by modules, this can be rediscussed).
> > 
> > Such differences would be bugs and should be fixed.  Our efforts
> > to eliminate major ABI differences from the kernel have to date
> > been largely successful.
> 
> Which ABI ? where is it specified ?
> Sorry, but as long as what part of the kernel API is availble to module and
> what part is not is not clearly specified, sharing module between different
> kernel builds will work only by luck.

I have a theory that luck is the main component in why any operating
system works at all.

The fact that binary kernel modules work in rump (on i386) should be
proof positive that the fictious and unspecified ABI is more real than
what the unlucky would want to believe.