* Re: [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()
2006-02-04 14:08 [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION() Matthew Martin
@ 2006-02-04 15:19 ` Jesper Juhl
2006-02-04 16:47 ` Adrian Bunk
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Juhl @ 2006-02-04 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()
2006-02-04 14:08 [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION() Matthew Martin
2006-02-04 15:19 ` Jesper Juhl
@ 2006-02-04 16:47 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-02-04 17:29 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2006-02-04 17:38 ` Randy.Dunlap
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2006-02-04 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()
2006-02-04 14:08 [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION() Matthew Martin
2006-02-04 15:19 ` Jesper Juhl
2006-02-04 16:47 ` Adrian Bunk
@ 2006-02-04 17:29 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2006-02-04 17:38 ` Randy.Dunlap
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Dobriyan @ 2006-02-04 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION()
2006-02-04 14:08 [KJ] [PATCH] MODULE_VERSION() Matthew Martin
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-04 17:29 ` Alexey Dobriyan
@ 2006-02-04 17:38 ` Randy.Dunlap
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2006-02-04 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread