Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933626AbYB2X1c (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:27:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757878AbYB2X1Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:27:24 -0500 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:36950 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752432AbYB2X1X (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:27:23 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 00:27:22 +0100 (CET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Krzysztof Halasa cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Few ideas... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1158 Lines: 29 On Mar 1 2008 00:17, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > >> d: I think it would not bad if it were included in the resulting >> object file like MODULE_AUTHOR is. > >I specifically don't want it in the binary - maintainers change, it's >not a point of contact for end users. It would be for source code ops >only. So what apart from the parsability of a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag, what is different from authors engraving their name into a comment at the start of the .c file? >> If anything, MODULE_AUTHOR could be removed, because the original >> author(s) are usually listed at the top of the .c file and not >> always the ones to talk to when there is a bug (=> the maintainer >> is). > >Perhaps it's there because of copyright. A number of .c files (even those that are not just built-in, but can also be built as =m) do not have a MODULE_AUTHOR(); and copyright is even valid when there is no apparent author name. -- 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/