Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266648AbUJUOLR (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:11:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264881AbUJUOFK (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:05:10 -0400 Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([24.172.12.4]:46097 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270723AbUJUOAI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:00:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:55:09 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, davem@davemloft.net, john.ronciak@intel.com, ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com, akpm@osdl.org, romieu@fr.zoreil.com, ctindel@users.sourceforge.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, greearb@candelatech.com Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.9 0/11] Add MODULE_VERSION to several network drivers Message-ID: <20041021085509.B29340@tuxdriver.com> Mail-Followup-To: Arjan van de Ven , netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, davem@davemloft.net, john.ronciak@intel.com, ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com, akpm@osdl.org, romieu@fr.zoreil.com, ctindel@users.sourceforge.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, greearb@candelatech.com References: <20041020141146.C8775@tuxdriver.com> <1098350269.2810.17.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20041021082205.A29340@tuxdriver.com> <1098366370.2810.31.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1098366370.2810.31.camel@laptop.fenrus.com>; from arjan@fenrus.demon.nl on Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:46:11PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1455 Lines: 34 On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:22, John W. Linville wrote: > > I would have to suspect that if a version string exists, that it has at > > least some meaning to the primary developers/maintainters. It certainly > Since the skeleton driver includes a define for that, I suspect your > assumption is a bit overly optimistic. Perhaps...still, at least the drivers I touched w/ these patches seem to have version numbers that are at least somewhat meaningful. > > Is this a political statement against the MODULE_VERSION macro and/or > > its purpose? I'm not overly interested in debating that one... > > Not really. I have absolutely no problem with a MODULE_VERSION macro > *IF* the version it advertises means something. However if the version > it advertises has no meaning whatsoever (eg the version number never > gets updated) then imo it's better to NOT advertise anything so that > other tools (like dkms) don't make assumptions and decisions based on > nothing-meaning data. Again, I think it would have to be the maintainer's responsibility to make the version numbers meaningful. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/