On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 02:21:58PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: > On 1/26/20 1:33 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote > > > The long-standing policy in kernel that we don't really care about > > > out-of-tree code. > > Yeah... we all know it's not that simple :) > > > > The in-tree driver versions are meaningless and cause annoying churn > > when people arbitrarily bump them. If we can get people to stop doing > > that we'll be happy, that's all there is to it. > > > Perhaps it would be helpful if this standard was applied to all the drivers > equally? For example, I see that this week's ice driver update from Intel > was accepted with no comment on their driver version bump. Thanks, it is another great example of why trusting driver authors, even experienced, on specific topics is not an option. > > Look, if we want to stamp all in-kernel drivers with the kernel version, > fine. But let's do it in a way that doesn't break the out-of-tree driver > ability to report something else. Can we set up a macro for in-kernel > drivers to use in their get_drvinfo callback and require drivers to use that > macro? Then the out-of-tree drivers are able to replace that macro with > whatever they need. Just don't forcibly bash the value from higher up in > the stack. The thing is that we don't consider in-kernel API as stable one, so addition of new field which is not in use in upstream looks sketchy to me, but I have an idea how to solve it. Thanks > > sln >
