| To: | "John W. Linville" <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 2.6.9 0/11] Add MODULE_VERSION to several network drivers |
| From: | Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:11:17 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, john.ronciak@xxxxxxxxx, ganesh.venkatesan@xxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ctindel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fubar@xxxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041021085509.B29340@tuxdriver.com> |
| References: | <20041020141146.C8775@tuxdriver.com> <1098350269.2810.17.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20041021082205.A29340@tuxdriver.com> <1098366370.2810.31.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20041021085509.B29340@tuxdriver.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:55, John W. Linville wrote: > > 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. absolutely; however you're not the maintainer of all of the ones you patched... and I still argue that until the number is meaningful exporting it as meaning something is more harm than good. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch 2.6.9 0/11] Add MODULE_VERSION to several network drivers, John W. Linville |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] iptables CLUSTERIP target, Harald Welte |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 2.6.9 0/11] Add MODULE_VERSION to several network drivers, John W. Linville |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [patch 2.6.9 0/11] Add MODULE_VERSION to several network drivers, John W. Linville |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |