[linux-dvb] RFC: remove support from v4l-dvb for kernels < 2.6.16
hverkuil at xs4all.nl
Sun Jul 6 15:05:02 CEST 2008
On Sunday 06 July 2008 14:58:34 Andy Walls wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 23:52 +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > RFC: remove support from v4l-dvb for kernels < 2.6.16
> > After spending some time trying to get v4l-dvb to compile on older
> > kernels I discovered that:
> > - it is OK for kernels >= 2.6.19
> > - it does not compile at the moment for kernels >= 2.6.16 and <
> > 2.6.19, but that this can be fixed.
> > - that it can be made to compile for kernels >= 2.6.12 and <
> > 2.6.16, although quite a few drivers had to be disabled and looking
> > at the type of compile warnings emitted the result would likely
> > crash, especially the closer one gets to 2.6.12.
> > - that I no longer can compile against older kernels since
> > gcc-4.1.2 no longer accepts some constructions used in those kernel
> > sources.
> But a user can have an old kernel version and an old tool chain. IMO
> I don't think gcc's version is a valid criterion, as that makes an
> assumption about what the user is using to build his very old kernel.
It's not a valid criterium, but the combination with the nasty compile
warnings I get when compiling for kernels 2.6.12-2.6.15 does make it an
additional consideration. Not to mention the additional effort required
to keep it all running.
> I know Fedora 5 used to include a gcc-3.2.3 (in the compat-gcc-32
> package) for compiling older stuff. I guess there was a major shift
> in gcc after that point. (I use gcc-3.2.3 in building the
> x86_64-mips cross compiler tool chain for building the linux v2.4.20
> firmware for my router.)
> > I did a few scans and of the approximately 932 KERNEL_VERSION
> > checks only 268 remain if we drop support for anything below
> > 2.6.26. That's a major cleanup.
I meant 2.6.16. Sorry, typo.
> > Since it is now simply broken for anything below 2.6.19 I think it
> > is a good solution to on the one hand do a major cleanup at the
> > expense of making it unlikely that we will ever support kernels
> > below 2.6.16, and on the other hand at least start to support
> > 2.6.16 and up.
> Only supporting 2.6.26 onward would prompt a surge of questions
> regarding compilation problems for users who are only a few kernel
> versions behind. I think your suggestion of supporting a few kernels
> back (2.6.16 or 2.6.19) is preferable.
> My $0.02
More information about the linux-dvb