On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 21:41:10 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > This will end up affecting out-of-tree drivers as well, where it is useful > > to know what the version number is, most especially since it is different > > from what the kernel provided driver is. How else are we to get this > > information out to the user? If this feature gets squashed, we'll end up > > having to abuse some other mechanism so we can get the live information from > > the driver, and probably each vendor will find a different way to sneak it > > out, giving us more chaos than where we started. At least the ethtool > > version field is a known and consistent place for the version info. > > > > Of course, out-of-tree drivers are not first class citizens, so I probably > > lose that argument as well. > > > > So if you are so all fired up about not allowing the drivers to report their > > own version number, then why report anything at all? Maybe just report a > > blank field. As some have said, the uname info is already available else > > where, why are we sticking it here? > > > > Personally, I think this is a rather arbitrary, heavy handed and unnecessary > > slam on the drivers, and will make support more difficult in the long run. > > The thing is that leaving this field as empty, for sure will break all > applications. I have a feeling that it can be close to 100% hit rate. > So, kernel version was chosen as an option, because it is already > successfully in use by at least two drivers (nfp and hns). Shannon does have a point that out of tree drivers still make use of this field. Perhaps it would be a more suitable first step to print the kernel version as default and add a comment saying upstream modules shouldn't overwrite it (perhaps one day CI can catch new violators). The NFP reports the git hash of the driver source plus the string "(oot)" for out-of-tree: https://github.com/Netronome/nfp-drv-kmods/blob/master/src/Kbuild#L297 https://github.com/Netronome/nfp-drv-kmods/blob/master/src/Kbuild#L315 > Leaving to deal with driver version to vendors is not an option too, > because they prove for more than once that they are not capable to > define user visible interfaces. It comes due to their natural believe > that their company is alone in the world and user visible interface > should be suitable for them only. > > It is already impossible for users to distinguish properly versions > of different vendors, because they use arbitrary strings with some > numbers. That is true. But reporting the kernel version without even as much as in-tree/out-of-tree indication makes the field entirely meaningless.
