On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 06:38:19AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 05:28:53PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote: > > > reinette chatre napsal(a): > > > > > > Right - could we please use the solution that works at compile time? I > > > > used UTS_RELEASE after learning about its use in init/version.c, would > > > > that not make it an approved solution? > > > > > > It seems there is some misunderstanding. > > > > Alright, if Stephen's fix is acceptable then your suggestion is fine. > > Sam seemed to suggest that Stephen's fix was a stop-gap. > > The need to use utsrelease seems very prominent in external drivers. > But a quick grep turned up only a single staging driver in-tree that > include utsrelease. > So whatever problem this driver solves using utsrelease it is not shared > with the rest of the in-tree drivers. > > So no - it is not a stop-gap. It is more a "is it really needed?". What problem are you trying to solve by eliminating it? The iwlwifi team was trying to eliminate the nearly-useless version number currently used in MODULE_VERSION. As I said, I would prefer to simply eliminate the MODULE_VERSION clause. But the iwlwifi team likes having something there, and UTS_RELEASE seems at least as informative as what they had before. So, the options are a) leave the useless version string as-is; b) require the version string to get bumped on every update; c) use UTS_RELEASE as a version string; or d) forcibly remove MODULE_VERSION from the iwlwifi drivers. Which would you advocate? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
