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