Re: Where did vm_operations_struct->unmap in 2.4.0 go?

[Keith Owens]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:43:21 +0000 (GMT), 
David Woodhouse <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
>> That forces the maintenance load back onto the binary supplier and
>> removes the questions from l-k, including many of the oops reports with
>> binary only drivers in the module list.
>
>No. The correct response to that is _already_ "You have a binary-only
>module. Even in the kernel it was compiled against, you are not supported.
>Goodbye".

I wish that Linus had never agreed to binary only modules.  But as long
as they are allowed, I want to detect problems with binary only modules
before they hit the rest of the kernel and end up as questions on l-k.

Note I said allowed, not supported.  I refuse to support any binary
only modules, my standard response to problems logged against binary
modules is "remove them and reproduce the problem".  Checking for ABI
violations is not supporting binary modules, it is detecting that they
are stuffed and telling the user to go pester their supplier instead of
polluting l-k with questions that will be ignored.