[PATCH 1/1] tools: hv: Return the full kernel version

[PATCH 1/1] tools: hv: Return the full kernel version

[K. Y. Srinivasan]

Currently, we are returning the same string for both OSBuildNumber 
and OSVersion keys. Return the full uts string for the OSBuild
key since Windows does not impose any restrictions on this. 

Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>
Reported-by: Claudio Latini <claudio.latini@live.com>
---
 tools/hv/hv_kvp_daemon.c |    9 ++++++---
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/hv/hv_kvp_daemon.c b/tools/hv/hv_kvp_daemon.c
index 5959aff..6c7bcb9 100644
--- a/tools/hv/hv_kvp_daemon.c
+++ b/tools/hv/hv_kvp_daemon.c
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ static char *os_major = "";
 static char *os_minor = "";
 static char *processor_arch;
 static char *os_build;
+static char *os_version;
 static char *lic_version = "Unknown version";
 static struct utsname uts_buf;
 
@@ -453,7 +454,9 @@ void kvp_get_os_info(void)
 	char	*p, buf[512];
 
 	uname(&uts_buf);
-	os_build = uts_buf.release;
+	os_version = uts_buf.release;
+	os_build = strdup(uts_buf.release);
+
 	os_name = uts_buf.sysname;
 	processor_arch = uts_buf.machine;
 
@@ -462,7 +465,7 @@ void kvp_get_os_info(void)
 	 * string to be of the form: x.y.z
 	 * Strip additional information we may have.
 	 */
-	p = strchr(os_build, '-');
+	p = strchr(os_version, '-');
 	if (p)
 		*p = '\0';
 
@@ -1649,7 +1652,7 @@ int main(void)
 			strcpy(key_name, "OSMinorVersion");
 			break;
 		case OSVersion:
-			strcpy(key_value, os_build);
+			strcpy(key_value, os_version);
 			strcpy(key_name, "OSVersion");
 			break;
 		case ProcessorArchitecture:
-- 
1.7.4.1

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: hv: Return the full kernel version

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 04:40:10PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> Currently, we are returning the same string for both OSBuildNumber 
> and OSVersion keys. Return the full uts string for the OSBuild
> key since Windows does not impose any restrictions on this. 

You sent me 2 patches, both 1/1, that modify the same file.  Which one
comes first?  Please resend both properly, and also let me know if these
are things that should be going into 3.7 or can wait for 3.8.

greg k-h

RE: [PATCH 1/1] tools: hv: Return the full kernel version

[KY Srinivasan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:45 AM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org; olaf@aepfle.de;
> apw@canonical.com; jasowang@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: hv: Return the full kernel version
> 
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 04:40:10PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > Currently, we are returning the same string for both OSBuildNumber
> > and OSVersion keys. Return the full uts string for the OSBuild
> > key since Windows does not impose any restrictions on this.
> 
> You sent me 2 patches, both 1/1, that modify the same file.  Which one
> comes first?  Please resend both properly, and also let me know if these
> are things that should be going into 3.7 or can wait for 3.8.

Initially,  I sent them out in the order I wanted them
applied. I will resend them as a patch set. They can wait for 3.8.

Regards,

K. Y
> 
> greg k-h
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: hv: Return the full kernel version

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 04:03:31PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:45 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org; olaf@aepfle.de;
> > apw@canonical.com; jasowang@redhat.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools: hv: Return the full kernel version
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 04:40:10PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > Currently, we are returning the same string for both OSBuildNumber
> > > and OSVersion keys. Return the full uts string for the OSBuild
> > > key since Windows does not impose any restrictions on this.
> > 
> > You sent me 2 patches, both 1/1, that modify the same file.  Which one
> > comes first?  Please resend both properly, and also let me know if these
> > are things that should be going into 3.7 or can wait for 3.8.
> 
> Initially,  I sent them out in the order I wanted them
> applied. I will resend them as a patch set. They can wait for 3.8.

The "order" you send them isn't always the order they are received by
people, that is why you need to have the X/2 numbering scheme.

greg k-h