Re: Versioning scheme for rdma-plumbing

[Jarod Wilson <jarod-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:33:27AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 05:28:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> > 
> > thanks for the writeup.  Versioning is always a bit of a bikeshedding
> > exercise, but I'd still vote for following the kernel versioning (while
> > fully agreeing with your thiughts on shared library versioning).
> 
> I'm having a hard time preferring one choice over the other.
> 
> If we use the kernel version then the shlibs will progress like:
> 
>  libibverbs1 1.2.4.8-1
>  libibverbs1 1.3.4.9-1
> 
> I don't see a problem with that, even if it does look a bit strange.
> 
> > Two reasons for that:
> > 
> >  - it's a good marker of what version of the userspace code you need
> >    to take advtantage of new kernel features
> 
> Most users are running EL distros and their kernels are full of
> backports. So the number doesn't help them. Perhaps it could help the
> distros?

It's actually useful. We tend to backport "up to kernel v4.x", so the
kernelspace drivers would match up well enough with the libibverbs with a
version number matching that. We actually have one userspace glue thing
that Doug mentioned earlier, which uses exactly that scheme for it's
versioning.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html