On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:33:27AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 05:28:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > thanks for the writeup. Versioning is always a bit of a bikeshedding > > exercise, but I'd still vote for following the kernel versioning (while > > fully agreeing with your thiughts on shared library versioning). > > I'm having a hard time preferring one choice over the other. > > If we use the kernel version then the shlibs will progress like: > > libibverbs1 1.2.4.8-1 > libibverbs1 1.3.4.9-1 > > I don't see a problem with that, even if it does look a bit strange. > > > Two reasons for that: > > > > - it's a good marker of what version of the userspace code you need > > to take advtantage of new kernel features > > Most users are running EL distros and their kernels are full of > backports. So the number doesn't help them. Perhaps it could help the > distros? It's actually useful. We tend to backport "up to kernel v4.x", so the kernelspace drivers would match up well enough with the libibverbs with a version number matching that. We actually have one userspace glue thing that Doug mentioned earlier, which uses exactly that scheme for it's versioning. -- Jarod Wilson jarod@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
