I think supermount should be returned to gentoo-sources-2.4 Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Any specific reason? We've mentioned that users that need supermount [1] should migrate to 2.6 since that contains much better functionality. [1] http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/johnm/2005/07/18/18_jul_2005_gwn
Yes, simply I can't migrate to 2.6 kernels because of my modem (Intel Ham) semi-propietary driver, that noone has managed to port to 2.6 kernel. It will be wonderful to readd supermount for people that can't migrate to 2.6 kernel (although I know supermount is not a needed program, this is, is not a securing program, or solves a vulnerability, but perhaps some people would like it). Thanks in advance.
Rather than introducing a large footprint (although contained) patch, which was incorrectly implemented at the very start I would like to try help with the intel modem driver issue instead. Can you please give all the details you can, plus lspci -v/lspci -n output as attachements to this bug? With a bit of luck/work we can get you on 2.6 so that you can enjoy all the benefits :) Supermount will likely not be re-added, simply because it has been superceded with a much better alternative and we would like to encourage people to move to that. Of course, you can apply this yourself to the gentoo-sources tree in /usr/src/linux.
Oh, ok, thanks for your help :) Well, the modem I use is a Intel Ham V.92 modem (made by Creatix, in my case, but this is not a problem, because in linux is a generic driver from Intel). We (the users of that modem) requested Intel to, at least update the modem driver to 2.6 (this is, not adding new features) but they replied that, as the driver has a non-restrictive license, they will not update the driver, so we were waiting to someone that has some knowledge (that person didn't appeared until today, by the way). The driver has two parts. The closed-source part, that is OS-independant, and the open-source part, that, although I don't know very good the internals, appears to load the closed-source part. The latest driver of this modem is this: http://linmodems.technion.ac.il/packages/Intel/ham/Intel-v92ham-453.tgz You can check on it that the license allows modification and redistribution. Oh, by the way, I got the same driver, but with the init script modified to run also by gentoo, it's here (it's the same as the before driver, simply I've modified it just a bit to load automatically at init, and changed the revision number): http://telefrancisco.iespana.es/linux/intel-v92ham-464.tar.gz http://telefrancisco.iespana.es/linux/intel-v92ham-464.tar.gz.md5 (Md5 Sum to check). Although I presume the init scripts will not run on 2.6, perhaps can save you work. There is also a 537 modem which driver is not backwards compatible with Intel ham, although in the code appears to be a Ham reference, perhaps a copypaste, so here it is: http://linmodems.technion.ac.il/packages/Intel/537/intel-537-2.60.80.0.tgz Thanks in advance.
Created attachment 65359 [details] Lspci -n output of my system.
Created attachment 65360 [details] Lspci -v output of my system.
Forgot to the mention that the Intel license is actually in portage (in use by, at least 536ep drivers (that is next modem to Intel Ham)). Is almost the same license (only changes the year of the copyright from 1999-2002(HAM) to 1999-2004(536ep)). By the way: HAM=Host Accelerated Modem.
Thanks. I have cc'd myself in and will look at all of this shortly. I still have a few things to sort re: moving house, so dont expect anything too soon :)
Can you check this with 2.6.13 please?
Erm.......... check what?
(In reply to comment #10) > Erm.......... check what? (I said this because I don't see anything to test here).
Oops, sorry I think I commented on the wrong bug. Don't worry. Also, I should have time to look at this again this week I hope.
(In reply to comment #12) > Also, I should have time to look at this again this week I hope. Ok, no problem :) I'm occupied too, so I understand you ;)
I've added the patch that was in 2.4.28 to the 2.4.32 patchset; it applies fine but I can't warrant whether it will still work -- if it doesn't I'd recommend pursuing upgrading to 2.6. Thanks!
(In reply to comment #14) > I've added the patch that was in 2.4.28 to the 2.4.32 patchset; it applies fine > but I can't warrant whether it will still work -- if it doesn't I'd recommend > pursuing upgrading to 2.6. Thanks! > I want also to migrate to 2.6, but the problem is what I explained in comment #2. Thanks for adding it until I can migrate to 2.6 :)
