[KJ] Holding off patches 6 - 20 for a bit

[KJ] Holding off patches 6 - 20 for a bit

[Jesse Millan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 317 bytes --]


I'll wait to see if there is any feedback before sending the rest.

--
Jesse Millan
CNS Unix Team
Portland State University
Phone: (503) 725-9151
Homepage: www.system-calls.com

The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting  
than the question of whether a submarine can swim. ~E.W. Dijkstra



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 168 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

Re: [KJ] Holding off patches 6 - 20 for a bit

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sünndag 18 September 2005 04:27, Jesse Millan wrote:
> 
> I'll wait to see if there is any feedback before sending the rest.

Could you explain why you think your patches are a good idea? Defining
an extra macro that is only used in a single well-known place appears
a bit pointless to me. Also, looking through the existing drivers,
less than one out of ten is currently doing it this way.

IMHO, we should rather convert those to use the MODULE_*() macros
directly.

	Arnd <><
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

Re: [KJ] Holding off patches 6 - 20 for a bit

[Jesse Millan]

On Sep 17, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Sünndag 18 September 2005 04:27, Jesse Millan wrote:
>
>>
>> I'll wait to see if there is any feedback before sending the rest.
>>
>
> Could you explain why you think your patches are a good idea? Defining
> an extra macro that is only used in a single well-known place appears
> a bit pointless to me. Also, looking through the existing drivers,
> less than one out of ten is currently doing it this way.
>
> IMHO, we should rather convert those to use the MODULE_*() macros
> directly.
>
>     Arnd <><
>

It's possible that I misunderstood.

TODO List: Add MODULE_VERSION() to modules

The description says to add the macro and that the preferred way to  
use is MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION).

Here is the description link and summary:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=kernel-janitor-discuss&m\x109068085714776

which says:

"Request for Patches

The 2.6.x kernel includes a MODULE_VERSION() parameter for providing
one convenient way for all modules to state what  *their* version is
(as opposed to the version of the larger kernel they're included in).

I've started submitting patches to the subsystem maintainers to add
MODULE_VERSION() entries for drivers that I particularly care about,
and would appreciate assistance handling the others.

For modules which display their version as a string somewhere via
printk, the preferred mechanism is:

#define DRV_VERSION "1.0.0"
MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);"


--
Jesse Millan
CNS Unix Team
Portland State University
Phone: (503) 725-9151
Homepage: www.system-calls.com

The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting  
than the question of whether a submarine can swim. ~E.W. Dijkstra



_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

Re: [KJ] Holding off patches 6 - 20 for a bit

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sünndag 18 September 2005 05:38, Jesse Millan wrote:

> Here is the description link and summary:
> 
> For modules which display their version as a string somewhere via
> printk, the preferred mechanism is:
> 
> #define DRV_VERSION "1.0.0"
> MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);"
> 
Yes, that one makes perfect sense. Note however the part about
'which display their version'. These would be modules that
use the same information in multiple places, or even have a
#define already for the version number, but do not have the
MODULE_VERSION();. What Matt did was just adding the MODULE_VERSION
call, not change it to use a new macro.

	Arnd <><
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

Re: [KJ] Holding off patches 6 - 20 for a bit

[Alexey Dobriyan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 413 bytes --]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:27:16PM -0700, Jesse Millan wrote:
> I'll wait to see if there is any feedback before sending the rest.

a) If you're stuck with sending patches as attachments, please, include
   full changelog in attachment too.
b) Separate #define for, say, license doesn't make sense, because it'll
   be used only in one place.
c) One patch per directory would be nice. I'll collapse them anyway.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 168 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors