[KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()

[KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()

[Matthew Martin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --]

OK, Sorry about last time. Here it is. Could you please tell me what
you mean by "the filenames need to begin with linux-x.y.z/" Is that
2.6.x or something else?


--- /home/matthew/src/linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c
2006-01-31 00:25:07.000000000 -0600
+++ /home/matthew/linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c	2006-02-03
14:31:09.000000000 -0600
@@ -95,10 +95,13 @@
 #include "onetouch.h"
 #endif
 
+#define DRV_VERSION "1.75"
+
 /* Some informational data */
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("USB Mass Storage driver for Linux");
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);
 
 static unsigned int delay_use = 5;
 module_param(delay_use, uint, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR);





[-- 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] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()

[Jesper Juhl]

On 2/4/06, Matthew Martin <lihnucks@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, Sorry about last time. Here it is. Could you please tell me what
> you mean by "the filenames need to begin with linux-x.y.z/" Is that
> 2.6.x or something else?
>

What is meant is that your patches should be generated so they apply
with 'patch -p1' from inside the source dir.

> --- /home/matthew/src/linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c

^^^ that should be

--- linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c


You seem to be doing

diff -up /home/matthew/src/linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c \
/home/matthew/linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c

Where instead you should be doing something like

cd /home/matthew/
diff -up linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c.old \
linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c

or

cd /home/matthew/
diff -up linux-2.6.15.2-original/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c \
linux-2.6.15.2/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c

See the difference?


--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

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

Re: [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()

[Adrian Bunk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1121 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 08:08:45AM -0600, Matthew Martin wrote:
>...
> @@ -95,10 +95,13 @@
>  #include "onetouch.h"
>  #endif
>  
> +#define DRV_VERSION "1.75"
> +
>  /* Some informational data */
>  MODULE_AUTHOR("Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net>");
>  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("USB Mass Storage driver for Linux");
>  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> +MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);
>...

Do we really want to make each ancient driver version string 
user-visible?

This is not your fault, it does IMHO not belong to the TODO.

There is a very limited area where active driver maintainers are 
maintaining a version number in a way that printing it does make sense.

But in all other cases, the kernel version is the best way to identify a 
driver.

E.g. in this case, the driver in the more than two years old kernel 
2.6.0 prints exactly the same version 1.75 .

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


[-- 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] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()

[Alexey Dobriyan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1058 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 05:47:31PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 08:08:45AM -0600, Matthew Martin wrote:
> >...
> > @@ -95,10 +95,13 @@
> >  #include "onetouch.h"
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +#define DRV_VERSION "1.75"
> > +
> >  /* Some informational data */
> >  MODULE_AUTHOR("Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net>");
> >  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("USB Mass Storage driver for Linux");
> >  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > +MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);
> >...
> 
> Do we really want to make each ancient driver version string
> user-visible?
>
> This is not your fault, it does IMHO not belong to the TODO.
>
> There is a very limited area where active driver maintainers are
> maintaining a version number in a way that printing it does make sense.
>
> But in all other cases, the kernel version is the best way to identify a
> driver.
>
> E.g. in this case, the driver in the more than two years old kernel
> 2.6.0 prints exactly the same version 1.75 .

I removed the item. Adding hundreds of module versions just to forget
about them...


[-- 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] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()

[Randy.Dunlap]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1215 bytes --]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 20:29:49 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 05:47:31PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 08:08:45AM -0600, Matthew Martin wrote:
> > >...
> > > @@ -95,10 +95,13 @@
> > >  #include "onetouch.h"
> > >  #endif
> > >  
> > > +#define DRV_VERSION "1.75"
> > > +
> > >  /* Some informational data */
> > >  MODULE_AUTHOR("Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net>");
> > >  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("USB Mass Storage driver for Linux");
> > >  MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > > +MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);
> > >...
> > 
> > Do we really want to make each ancient driver version string
> > user-visible?
> >
> > This is not your fault, it does IMHO not belong to the TODO.
> >
> > There is a very limited area where active driver maintainers are
> > maintaining a version number in a way that printing it does make sense.
> >
> > But in all other cases, the kernel version is the best way to identify a
> > driver.
> >
> > E.g. in this case, the driver in the more than two years old kernel
> > 2.6.0 prints exactly the same version 1.75 .
> 
> I removed the item. Adding hundreds of module versions just to forget
> about them...

Thanks.  I third that.

---
~Randy

[-- 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