From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751762Ab1AHScu (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2011 13:32:50 -0500 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:58025 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751371Ab1AHScu (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2011 13:32:50 -0500 Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 10:31:35 -0800 From: Greg KH To: "Artem S. Tashkinov" Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Claudio Scordino Subject: Re: On Linux numbering scheme Message-ID: <20110108183135.GA22661@kroah.com> References: <18673709.2121294505029740.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> <27552986.2181294505105130.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27552986.2181294505105130.JavaMail.root@mail-zbox20.bo3.lycos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 11:45:05AM -0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > > What userspace scripts/applications expect numbers like that? How do > > they handle releases like what Linus just did (2.6.37)? > > > > I've just grepped through all the shell scripts installed in Fedora 14 and > I haven't found any `uname -r` references, so it seems like the base system > is quite safe (I haven't tried to grep through binaries as I have no clue > how to check them). > > However sources of VMWare/NVIDIA/VBox/etc. kernel modules have multiples > instances of: > > #if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 4, 7) > # error This driver does not support 2.4 kernels older than 2.4.7! > #elif LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 5, 0) > # define KERNEL_2_4 > #elif LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 6, 0) > # error This driver does not support 2.5 kernels! > #elif LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2, 7, 0) > # define KERNEL_2_6 > #else > # error This driver does not support development kernels! > #endif > > So, it seems like the only obstacle that stops us from starting a completely > new numbering scheme is proprietary or corporations driven/developed software. No, those work just fine as well, you need to look at the KERNEL_VERSION macro to see that. And any numbering scheme we come up with, will of course be an incremental number greater than our current number. But this topic is on hold now until the next kernel summit when it will be revisited again. I narrowly missed changing the numbering scheme last year, hopefully this year will be different. thanks, greg k-h