diff mbox series

[2/7] net: batman-adv: remove unneeded MODULE_VERSION() usage

Message ID 20201202124959.29209-2-info@metux.net
State New
Headers show
Series [1/7] net: 8021q: remove unneeded MODULE_VERSION() usage | expand

Commit Message

Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Dec. 2, 2020, 12:49 p.m. UTC
Remove MODULE_VERSION(), as it isn't needed at all: the only version
making sense is the kernel version.

Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
---
 net/batman-adv/main.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Sven Eckelmann Dec. 5, 2020, 7:06 a.m. UTC | #1
On Wednesday, 2 December 2020 13:49:54 CET Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> Remove MODULE_VERSION(), as it isn't needed at all: the only version

> making sense is the kernel version.


Is there some explanation besides an opinion? Some kind goal which you want to 
achieve with it maybe?

At least for us it was an easy way to query the release cycle information via 
batctl. Which made it easier for us to roughly figure out what an reporter/
inquirer was using - independent of whether he is using the in-kernel version 
or a backported version.

Loosing this source of information and breaking parts of batctl and other 
tools (respondd, ...) is not the end of the world. But I would at least know 
why this is now necessary.

Kind regards,
	Sven
Jakub Kicinski Dec. 5, 2020, 4:56 p.m. UTC | #2
On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 08:06:40 +0100 Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 December 2020 13:49:54 CET Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> > Remove MODULE_VERSION(), as it isn't needed at all: the only version
> > making sense is the kernel version.  
> 
> Is there some explanation besides an opinion? Some kind goal which you want to 
> achieve with it maybe?
> 
> At least for us it was an easy way to query the release cycle information via 
> batctl. Which made it easier for us to roughly figure out what an reporter/
> inquirer was using - independent of whether he is using the in-kernel version 
> or a backported version.
> 
> Loosing this source of information and breaking parts of batctl and other 
> tools (respondd, ...) is not the end of the world. But I would at least know 
> why this is now necessary.

No, no, if it breaks your user space we can't do it, let's leave batman
alone, then.

I think this is mostly a clean up. In-tree the kernel version is usually
far more dependable because backports don't include version bumps.

Indeed it would be great if the clear motivation was spelled out in the
cover letter and/or patches.
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Dec. 8, 2020, 7:48 a.m. UTC | #3
On 05.12.20 08:06, Sven Eckelmann wrote:

Hi,

> Is there some explanation besides an opinion? Some kind goal which you want to 

> achieve with it maybe?


Just a cleanup. I've been under the impression that this version is just
an relic from oot times.

> At least for us it was an easy way to query the release cycle information via 

> batctl. Which made it easier for us to roughly figure out what an reporter/

> inquirer was using - independent of whether he is using the in-kernel version 

> or a backported version.


Is the OOT scenario still valid ?

> Loosing this source of information and breaking parts of batctl and other 

> tools (respondd, ...) is not the end of the world. But I would at least know 

> why this is now necessary.


Okay, if this particular information indeed has a practical value, we
should keep it. Taking it as a NAK.

Perhaps we should add a comment what it's used for and make sure, the
version number is properly maintained.

The problem I see w/ those version fields is that we have lots of
changes in the kernel tree, w/o the version number being increased -
making this information at least doubtful.


--mtx

-- 
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Sven Eckelmann Dec. 8, 2020, 9:55 a.m. UTC | #4
On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 08:48:56 CET Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> > Is there some explanation besides an opinion? Some kind goal which you want to 

> > achieve with it maybe?

> 

> Just a cleanup. I've been under the impression that this version is just

> an relic from oot times.


There are various entities which are loving to use the distro kernel and 
replace the batman-adv module with a backport from a newer kernel version. 
Similar to what is done in OpenWrt for the wifi drivers.

> > At least for us it was an easy way to query the release cycle information via 

> > batctl. Which made it easier for us to roughly figure out what an reporter/

> > inquirer was using - independent of whether he is using the in-kernel version 

> > or a backported version.

> 

> Is the OOT scenario still valid ?


Since the backport is OOT - yes, it is still valid.

Kind regards,
	Sven
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/batman-adv/main.c b/net/batman-adv/main.c
index 70fee9b42e25..1c2ccad94bf8 100644
--- a/net/batman-adv/main.c
+++ b/net/batman-adv/main.c
@@ -747,6 +747,5 @@  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR(BATADV_DRIVER_AUTHOR);
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION(BATADV_DRIVER_DESC);
 MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE(BATADV_DRIVER_DEVICE);
-MODULE_VERSION(BATADV_SOURCE_VERSION);
 MODULE_ALIAS_RTNL_LINK("batadv");
 MODULE_ALIAS_GENL_FAMILY(BATADV_NL_NAME);