On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 13:10 -0700, MHR wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
Well... if you go for the fuse/dkms route, you will lose the chance to build the module upon kernel update. :-)
True - decisions, decisions,....
Well you can always do what I did a few years back. "In days of yore, long ago" I had a LAN using some coax and ethernet cards leftover from my early Lantastic installation. Cards were a mixed bag Including some IBM ones that had both RJ-45 and BNC ports. At the time the drivers (for Crystal chips) had no support for the BNC ports and didn't allow use of all the chipset features.
I jumped in to the source and I WAS AGHAST! It was the crappiest, least structured, most obfuscated mess I had ever seen.
Falling back to my former life, I hollered "REWRITE, YES" (accompanied by rapid pumping of right fist upon slightly bent knee! :-))
So I went to the web site, downloaded the docs, learned how it was supposed to work and started re-work. I didn't do the whole job, but annotated and restructured the parts I had to touch.
I then maintained it of many version of the kernel and driver.
Since I was doing LFS at the time, it sometimes got interesting.
But it did keep my in practice building kernels, modules and making patches.
Maybe that's a possibility for you? A nice side-effect is being able to help occasionally when some poses a question about what you been working on. For me, a lot of satisfaction came when I was able to help the LFS list users when they had networking problems - "peripheral learning effect".
mhr
<snip>