On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:00:22PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:46:41PM +0900, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:28:49AM -0400, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Jubin John <jubin.john@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jubin John <jubin.john@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/common.h | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/common.h b/drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/common.h > > > index 7809093eb55e..5dd92720faae 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/common.h > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/common.h > > > @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ > > > * to the driver itself, not the software interfaces it supports. > > > */ > > > #ifndef HFI1_DRIVER_VERSION_BASE > > > -#define HFI1_DRIVER_VERSION_BASE "0.9-248" > > > +#define HFI1_DRIVER_VERSION_BASE "0.9-294" > > > > Patches like this make no sense at all, please drop it and only use the > > kernel version. > > What do you mean by "only use the kernel version"? Do you mean > > #define HFI1_DRIVER_VERSION_BASE UTS_RELEASE > > Or just remove the macro entirely? Remove it entirely, it's pointless and makes no sense for in-kernel code. > > Trust me, it's going to get messy really fast (hint, it > > already did...) > > Did I base this on the wrong tree? Not sure how this could have messed you up. Nope, the patch applied just fine, but think about it, I didn't take all of the patches you sent me, so what exactly does that version number now represent? Hint, absolutely nothing, or even worse, something completely wrong :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
