On Sul, 2005-07-31 at 00:27 -0400, D. ShadowWolf wrote:
> On this topic I have to weigh in that I just subscribed to the kernel list
> because I have had to undo a modification made to the kernel around version
> 2.6.10 that stopped the export of 'inter_module_get'. To me it appears that
> some
On this topic I have to weigh in that I just subscribed to the kernel list
because I have had to undo a modification made to the kernel around version
2.6.10 that stopped the export of 'inter_module_get'. To me it appears that
some kernel developers forget that there are those of us out there w
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:02:51AM +, J.A. Magallon wrote:
>
> On 2005.01.25, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:56:25PM +, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> >
> > > You can use the latest drivers (6629) with this patches:
> > >
> > > http://www.minion.de/files/1.0-6629/
> > >
On 2005.01.25, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:56:25PM +, J.A. Magallon wrote:
>
> > You can use the latest drivers (6629) with this patches:
> >
> > http://www.minion.de/files/1.0-6629/
> >
> > They work fine up to -rc2.
> >
> > If you want to use the driver with -mm
On 2005.01.25, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:56:25PM +, J.A. Magallon wrote:
>
> > You can use the latest drivers (6629) with this patches:
> >
> > http://www.minion.de/files/1.0-6629/
> >
> > They work fine up to -rc2.
> >
> > If you want to use the driver with -mm
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:56:25PM +, J.A. Magallon wrote:
> You can use the latest drivers (6629) with this patches:
>
> http://www.minion.de/files/1.0-6629/
>
> They work fine up to -rc2.
>
> If you want to use the driver with -mm, you have to kill the support
> for AGPGART in nvidia driv
On 2005.01.25, David Mosberger wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:03:01 +1100, Keith Owens said:
>
> Keith> I have always hated the dynamic resolution model used by
> Keith> DRM/AGP and (originally) MTD.
>
> Well, the attached patch does the trick for me for Nvidia driver v5336
> on ia64
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:31:04PM -0600, Terence Ripperda wrote:
> this is probably a stupid question, but how are weak references
> used?
the linker sets them to zero, so "if (foo) { ... }" works nicely
it does mean if a module that set foo to non-zero is loaded, we need
to zero it again when
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:44:18AM +1100, kaos@ocs.com.au wrote:
> Weak references are only done once, when the module is loaded. We
> already use weak references for static determination of symbol
> availability. inter_module_* and __symbol_* are aimed at the dynamic
> reference problem, not sta
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:03:01 +1100, Keith Owens said:
Keith> I have always hated the dynamic resolution model used by
Keith> DRM/AGP and (originally) MTD.
Well, the attached patch does the trick for me for Nvidia driver v5336
on ia64. It compiles with a minimum amount of fuss with gcc
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:03:01 +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:58:29 -0800,
> David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:54:36 +1100, Keith Owens said:
> >
> > Keith> Does DRM support this model?
DRM will compile two different modules depending o
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:54:36 +1100, Keith Owens said:
Keith> Does DRM support this model?
Keith> * Start DRM without AGP.
Keith> * AGP is loaded.
Keith> * DRM continues but now using AGP.
Keith> If yes then it needs dynamic symbol resolution.
I think it does, but I don't see an
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:58:29 -0800,
David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:54:36 +1100, Keith Owens said:
>
> Keith> Does DRM support this model?
>
> Keith> * Start DRM without AGP.
> Keith> * AGP is loaded.
> Keith> * DRM continues but now using AGP.
>
> Ke
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:52:06 -0800,
David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:44:18 +1100, Keith Owens said:
>
> Keith> Does the kernel code really need optional dynamic references
> Keith> between modules or kernel -> modules? That depends on how
> Keith> peopl
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:52:06 -0800, David Mosberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the only place that I know of where I (have to) care about
> inter_module*() is because of the DRM/AGP dependency. I can't imagine
The DRM inter_module_XX dependency has been removed in 2.6.10. AGP
still export
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:19:05 -0500, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Jon> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:52:06 -0800, David Mosberger
Jon> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, the only place that I know of where I (have to) care about
>> inter_module*() is because of the DRM/AGP dependency
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:44:18 +1100, Keith Owens said:
Keith> Does the kernel code really need optional dynamic references
Keith> between modules or kernel -> modules? That depends on how
Keith> people code their modules. If the rest of the kernel no
Keith> longer needs dynamic sym
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:36:10 -0800,
David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Keith,
>
>I didn't see any followup to your message. My apologies if I missed
>something.
>
>You wrote:
>
> Keith> inter_module_* and __symbol_* solve these class of problems:
>
> Keith> Module A can use module B if B
Keith,
I didn't see any followup to your message. My apologies if I missed
something.
You wrote:
Keith> inter_module_* and __symbol_* solve these class of problems:
Keith> Module A can use module B if B is loaded, but A does not
Keith> require module B to do its work. B is optional.
Keit
19 matches
Mail list logo
