Re: Question on MODULE_VERSION macro

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

In message <20040120011734.GB6309@kroah.com> you write:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:57:38AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > In message <20040119214233.GF967@beaverton.ibm.com> you write:
> > > Rusty,
> > > 	Christoph mentioned that a MODULE_VERSION macro may be pending.
> > 
> > Hey, thanks Christoph for the reminder.  I stopped when we were
> > frozen.
> > 
> > This still seems to apply.  Do people think this is huge overkill, or
> > a work of obvious beauty and genius?
> 
> Looks sane.  I'm guessing that modinfo can show this?

Yes.  Looks like so:

--- working-2.6.1-bk5-module_version/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c.~1~	2003-09-29 10:25:15.000000000 +1000
+++ working-2.6.1-bk5-module_version/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c	2004-01-20 18:22:46.000000000 +1100
@@ -2081,3 +2081,4 @@
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(smp,
 	"Set this to enable APM use on an SMP platform. Use with caution on older systems");
 MODULE_ALIAS_MISCDEV(APM_MINOR_DEV);
+MODULE_VERSION("1.16ac-rustytest");

$ modinfo arch/i386/kernel/apm.ko
author:         Stephen Rothwell
description:    Advanced Power Management
license:        GPL
....
version:        1.16ac-rustytest B13E9451C4CA3B89577DEFF
vermagic:       2.6.1-bk5 SMP PENTIUMII gcc-3.2
depends:        

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.