[OpenAFS] suggestion for linux kernel modules
Tim Spriggs
tims@lpl.arizona.edu
Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:31:15 -0700 (MST)
Hi Joe,
I just thought I would point out the uname is a standard utility and
works almost everywhere. On the other hand, my kernel doesn't provide a
/proc/ksyms (2.6.12.5 vanilla kernel)
This may be a good idea but the implementation needs some modification
to be more general. This is probably why uname was used in the first
place.
-Tim
/++--._.--++\ . _.-._
\|/ /+
| /|\ /| _.-._.-._ <{
+ | |/ \ \_
/_\ _|_ | | ^=-._
\
Lunar and Planetary Lab }>
(520) 626 - 4991 -- SS 416 _/
_______________________________________.-=$/ <|>
1629 E. University Blvd.
University of Arizona
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Joe Buehler wrote:
> We have a half-dozen different kernel versions here. After running
> into some problems with kernels named the same but requiring different
> AFS modules (I think it was 586 vs 686 or similar), I started naming
> the modules based on the content of /proc/ksyms on the build machine.
>
> Here is what I use to compute a checksum of the kernel symbols:
>
> awk 'NF==2' /proc/ksyms | md5sum | awk '{print $1}'
>
> The NF==2 strips out the symbols associated with loaded modules,
> leaving only the symbols associated with the kernel itself.
>
> To avoid changing the afs startup script, I hard-link at install time
> from the built module name to the name that the script expects,
> based on the same /proc/ksyms computation on the target machine.
>
> Including all the kernel symbols in the checksum is obviously overkill,
> but my point is I suppose that the current 1.4 scheme of using uname
> output for selecting a module is flawed and the module name should
> really be based on more detailed kernel information.
> --
> Joe Buehler
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
>