[KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs

[KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs

[Kees Cook]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 622 bytes --]

Would patches towards adding missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION, MODULE_VERSION, 
and MODULE_AUTHOR stuff be taken?  While these aren't covered in the 
CodingStyle document, I did find reference to their preferred order in 
Documentation/i2c/porting-clients.txt where Greg KH said the order 
should be:

MODULE_AUTHOR
MODULE_DESCRIPTION
MODULE_LICENSE /* last line of source */

I'm curious where MODULE_VERSION should go, as well as 
MODULE_PARAM_DESC.

Notably, AUTHOR, DESCRIPTION, and VERSION seem to be missing from the 
various examples in Documention/

-- 
Kees Cook                                            @outflux.net

[-- 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] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs

[Greg KH]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 854 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 04:04:00PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Would patches towards adding missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION, MODULE_VERSION, 
> and MODULE_AUTHOR stuff be taken?  While these aren't covered in the 
> CodingStyle document, I did find reference to their preferred order in 
> Documentation/i2c/porting-clients.txt where Greg KH said the order 
> should be:

I said that?  Hm, looks like Jean did, not I :)

> 
> MODULE_AUTHOR
> MODULE_DESCRIPTION
> MODULE_LICENSE /* last line of source */
> 
> I'm curious where MODULE_VERSION should go, as well as 
> MODULE_PARAM_DESC.

Where ever you want them to go.  Traditionally the _DESC stuff goes
right after the module_param() line, to keep it all together.

> Notably, AUTHOR, DESCRIPTION, and VERSION seem to be missing from the 
> various examples in Documention/

What examples?

thanks,

greg k-h

[-- 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] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs

[Kees Cook]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:27:09PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I said that?  Hm, looks like Jean did, not I :)

Oh, whoops.  I scrolled up just enough to find your name.  ;)

> > Notably, AUTHOR, DESCRIPTION, and VERSION seem to be missing from the 
> > various examples in Documention/
> 
> What examples?

i2c/porting-clients (instructions, rather than code)
i2c/writing-clients (same)
sound/alsa/DocBook/writing-an-alsa-driver.tmpl
firmware_class/firmware_sample_driver.c
firmware_class/firmware_sample_firmware_class.c
connector/cn_test.c
DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl (not really an example, more a description)
DocBook/videobook.tmpl
DocBook/procfs_example.c
kprobes.txt

What I was really in the mood for was adding those things to the rest of 
the code tree too.  There are plenty of modules that have authors, 
versions, and descriptions listed in comments and #define's, but not 
marked up in MODULE_*() syntax.

-- 
Kees Cook                                            @outflux.net

[-- 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] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs

[Greg KH]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1104 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:18:16PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:27:09PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > I said that?  Hm, looks like Jean did, not I :)
> 
> Oh, whoops.  I scrolled up just enough to find your name.  ;)
> 
> > > Notably, AUTHOR, DESCRIPTION, and VERSION seem to be missing from the 
> > > various examples in Documention/
> > 
> > What examples?
> 
> i2c/porting-clients (instructions, rather than code)
> i2c/writing-clients (same)
> sound/alsa/DocBook/writing-an-alsa-driver.tmpl
> firmware_class/firmware_sample_driver.c
> firmware_class/firmware_sample_firmware_class.c
> connector/cn_test.c
> DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl (not really an example, more a description)
> DocBook/videobook.tmpl
> DocBook/procfs_example.c
> kprobes.txt
> 
> What I was really in the mood for was adding those things to the rest of 
> the code tree too.  There are plenty of modules that have authors, 
> versions, and descriptions listed in comments and #define's, but not 
> marked up in MODULE_*() syntax.

Sure, start in a directory and work through them all :)

Good luck,

greg k-h

[-- 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

MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Alexey Dobriyan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1966 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 04:04:00PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Would patches towards adding missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION, MODULE_VERSION,
> and MODULE_AUTHOR stuff be taken?  While these aren't covered in the
> CodingStyle document, I did find reference to their preferred order in
> Documentation/i2c/porting-clients.txt where Greg KH said the order
> should be:
>
> MODULE_AUTHOR
> MODULE_DESCRIPTION
> MODULE_LICENSE /* last line of source */
>
> I'm curious where MODULE_VERSION should go, as well as
> MODULE_PARAM_DESC.
>
> Notably, AUTHOR, DESCRIPTION, and VERSION seem to be missing from the
> various examples in Documention/

I hate MODULE_VERSION. It stops making sense after the following
definition:

	Version of a module is a version of kernel it was shipped with.

Given:	module 8139too version 0.9.27 is buggy in somesuch way.
Question: which one?

There were quite a few nontrivial changes made since transition to git:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christoph Lameter:
      Cleanup patch for process freezing

Jeff Garzik:
      [netdrvr 8139too] replace hand-crafted kernel thread with workqueue
      [netdrvr 8139too] use cancel_rearming_delayed_work() to cancel thread
      [netdrvr 8139too] use rtnl_shlock_nowait() rather than rtnl_lock_interruptible()
      [netdrvr 8139too] fast poll for thread, if an unlikely race occurs

John W. Linville:
      8139too: support ETHTOOL_GPERMADDR
      8139too: fix resume for Realtek 8100B/8139D

Olaf Hering:
      turn many #if $undefined_string into #ifdef $undefined_string

Pekka Enberg:
        8139too: use iomap for pio/mmio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the above changes touched MODULE_VERSION. It's still 0.9.27.

MODULE_VERSION is almost always outdated. You can't rely on it in
bugreports. All you can rely on is kernel version, be it 2.6.15-git1 or
2.6.15-0aec63e67c69545ca757a73a66f5dcf05fa484bf.


[-- 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

MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 04:04:00PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Would patches towards adding missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION, MODULE_VERSION,
> and MODULE_AUTHOR stuff be taken?  While these aren't covered in the
> CodingStyle document, I did find reference to their preferred order in
> Documentation/i2c/porting-clients.txt where Greg KH said the order
> should be:
>
> MODULE_AUTHOR
> MODULE_DESCRIPTION
> MODULE_LICENSE /* last line of source */
>
> I'm curious where MODULE_VERSION should go, as well as
> MODULE_PARAM_DESC.
>
> Notably, AUTHOR, DESCRIPTION, and VERSION seem to be missing from the
> various examples in Documention/

I hate MODULE_VERSION. It stops making sense after the following
definition:

	Version of a module is a version of kernel it was shipped with.

Given:	module 8139too version 0.9.27 is buggy in somesuch way.
Question: which one?

There were quite a few nontrivial changes made since transition to git:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christoph Lameter:
      Cleanup patch for process freezing

Jeff Garzik:
      [netdrvr 8139too] replace hand-crafted kernel thread with workqueue
      [netdrvr 8139too] use cancel_rearming_delayed_work() to cancel thread
      [netdrvr 8139too] use rtnl_shlock_nowait() rather than rtnl_lock_interruptible()
      [netdrvr 8139too] fast poll for thread, if an unlikely race occurs

John W. Linville:
      8139too: support ETHTOOL_GPERMADDR
      8139too: fix resume for Realtek 8100B/8139D

Olaf Hering:
      turn many #if $undefined_string into #ifdef $undefined_string

Pekka Enberg:
        8139too: use iomap for pio/mmio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the above changes touched MODULE_VERSION. It's still 0.9.27.

MODULE_VERSION is almost always outdated. You can't rely on it in
bugreports. All you can rely on is kernel version, be it 2.6.15-git1 or
2.6.15-0aec63e67c69545ca757a73a66f5dcf05fa484bf.

Re: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_*

[Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

Hi everyone,

I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.

Any comments?

-- 
Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara
http://www.toolchains.com/personal/blog

[-- 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: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara]

Hi everyone,

I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.

Any comments?

-- 
Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara
http://www.toolchains.com/personal/blog

Re: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_*

[Greg KH]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 610 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION

No.

> 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
> the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.

No, just let the authors of the different drivers that want to use
MODULE_VERSION use it (for some people it does matter, and they keep it
up to date.)  Everyone else, just don't add it if you don't care about
it.

> Any comments?

In short, leave it alone :)

thanks,

greg k-h

[-- 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: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION

No.

> 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
> the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.

No, just let the authors of the different drivers that want to use
MODULE_VERSION use it (for some people it does matter, and they keep it
up to date.)  Everyone else, just don't add it if you don't care about
it.

> Any comments?

In short, leave it alone :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_*

[Matthew Wilcox]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 414 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
> 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
> the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.
> 
> Any comments?

Do neither.  Just because some people don't use it properly is no reason
to remove it.


[-- 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: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
> 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
> the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.
> 
> Any comments?

Do neither.  Just because some people don't use it properly is no reason
to remove it.

Re: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_*

[Matt Domsch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1074 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:58:00PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> > 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
> 
> No.
> 
> > 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
> > the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.
> 
> No, just let the authors of the different drivers that want to use
> MODULE_VERSION use it (for some people it does matter, and they keep it
> up to date.)  Everyone else, just don't add it if you don't care about
> it.

DKMS (http://linux.dell.com/dkms/) uses it to tell if one version is
newer than another.  For the couple dozen modules Dell regularly cares
about, the module authors have been doing a good job of keeping
MODULE_VERSION correct, for exactly this reason.

> In short, leave it alone :)

Please!

-- 
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com

[-- 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: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Matt Domsch]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:58:00PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> > 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
> 
> No.
> 
> > 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use 
> > the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.
> 
> No, just let the authors of the different drivers that want to use
> MODULE_VERSION use it (for some people it does matter, and they keep it
> up to date.)  Everyone else, just don't add it if you don't care about
> it.

DKMS (http://linux.dell.com/dkms/) uses it to tell if one version is
newer than another.  For the couple dozen modules Dell regularly cares
about, the module authors have been doing a good job of keeping
MODULE_VERSION correct, for exactly this reason.

> In short, leave it alone :)

Please!

-- 
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com

Re: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_*

[Matt Domsch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 479 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:58:00PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> > 
> > I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> > 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION

vermagic already has KERNEL_VERSION, if that's what someone really
cares about.

-- 
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com

[-- 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: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Matt Domsch]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:58:00PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:55:16PM -0300, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara wrote:
> > 
> > I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> > 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION

vermagic already has KERNEL_VERSION, if that's what someone really
cares about.

-- 
Matt Domsch
Software Architect
Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com

Re: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_*

[Håkon Løvdal]

On 1/8/06, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara <carlos@embedded.cl> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
> 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use
> the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.
>
> Any comments?

I think there is another option:

3. Always print KERNEL_VERSION in addition to MODULE_VERSION.

Since for some modules MODULE_VERSION is considered useful and
KERNEL_VERSION always is useful, this should give the best of both, right?

BR Håkon Løvdal

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

Re: MODULE_VERSION useless? (was Re: [KJ] adding missing MODULE_* stuffs)

[Håkon Løvdal]

On 1/8/06, Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara <carlos@embedded.cl> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have two ideas about what to do with MODULE_VERSION:
> 1.- Defining MODULE_VERSION = KERNEL_VERSION
> 2.- Schedule it for removal in one or two more versions, and automagically use
> the KERNEL_VERSION as module's version.
>
> Any comments?

I think there is another option:

3. Always print KERNEL_VERSION in addition to MODULE_VERSION.

Since for some modules MODULE_VERSION is considered useful and
KERNEL_VERSION always is useful, this should give the best of both, right?

BR Håkon Løvdal