On 5/26/2017 12:35 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Dennis Dalessandro
<dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/23/2017 7:44 AM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Remove date and bump version for mlx5_core driver.
Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
So I just complained about the bnxt_re doing this. I guess I need to raise a
flag here too. Now to be clear I'm not against doing this version stuff. I'm
against using it for some internal tracking that is meaningless to the
kernel community.
There is no detail in your commit message as to what this driver version is
used for. Can you please explain how your use of driver version is valid
while theirs is not?
Hi Denny,
We don't use this for internal or any kind of tracking at all, if you
look at the driver change log, we hardly touch the version if at all !
but since we decided to remove the date since it is very misleading
and we got some complaints that some think they have an old driver
just because of the date, also we bumped the version so it would align
with our drivers external package (OFED).
To me that's not a reason to include something in the kernel. At least
your external package is something that is available and not an internal
development process, but still probably no interest to anyone in the kernel.
Anyway i don't think we are going to change this frequently or even use it.
But if you are that much against touching this ethtool field, why
don't you just jump into the mud and remove it from the tree, I
imagine it is really hard for you to watch for patches doing this and
nack them on the list.
I have no interest in policing that. I complained about the other driver
because I know patches like that were NAKed by Greg KH in the past
(ours). I'd rather not see the rdma subsystem keep making the same
mistakes is all. We want to improve our standing in the community after
all. As I said I'm not personally against it as evidenced by our driver.
I realize Dave has already pulled this and I'm not asking for it to be
reverted but maybe some discussion will help guide future patch submissions
which do this stuff.
Sure, although i don't think we are going to use those version fields
in the future,
please allow me to ask, how do you do your driver versioning ? how do
you track things ?
and what is your future vision regarding ethool->drv_version ?
That's just the thing, we don't do anything with it either really. I'm
trying to justify its existence to myself and if you folks had some whiz
bang idea for a driver version I was interested in hearing what it was.
-Denny
--
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
