Hello!

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:53:50AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Denis" == Denis Chapligin <chollya_at_satgate.net> writes:
> 
>     Denis> My problem is that i'm trying to build kernels in 'debian
>     Denis> way', so i have a single .deb package with kernel, some
>     Denis> patches, additional modules and so on. But coda module
>     Denis> requires additional work in this case and it comes to be a
>     Denis> problem whan you have several dozens of servers:) So
>     Denis> providing a kernel patch for coda module will make a life
>     Denis> easier .
> 
> But why should there be a separate patch for something that is already
> in the kernel?  If the module distributed with the kernel doesn't work
> for you, let's fix it!

But the additional kernel module is provided for every version of coda
client....

> >From what Jan says, I guess there's a backward compatibility problem
> with the old implicit-single-realm kernel code and the modern explicit
> realms code.  That should be fixed by adding two build suboptions to
> build with the realms code and without, not by maintaining a separate
> patch.  (Either or both modules could be built, and they would be
> named "coda-realms" and "coda-norealms".)

The out-of-box kernel module doesn't supports realms. So i have to
compile new module manually (i.e. not during automated kernel compilation
process) and then manually copy it to all my servers. 

> This way you could (in theory) upgrade an individual client on-the-fly
> with "modprobe -r coda-norealms; modprobe coda-realms".  Of course it
> probably won't work so well in practice, but at least this would mean
> every kernel would be ready for upgrade simply by switching modules.
> 

There could be a lot of problems with versioning and so on. But sounds
good :)

-- 
						Denis Chapligin