On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 07:34:33AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > 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. Actually, it looks like my idea is Jakub's and Michal's idea. I will use this opportunity and remove MODULE_VERSION() too. Thanks > > Thanks > > > > > sln > >
