From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756278Ab3AUSYp (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:24:45 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.19.201]:33861 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755823Ab3AUSYo (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:24:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:26:04 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Jon Mason Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jiang , Nicholas Bellinger Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/21] NTB: Update Version Message-ID: <20130121182604.GE5499@kroah.com> References: <1358586155-23322-1-git-send-email-jon.mason@intel.com> <1358586155-23322-16-git-send-email-jon.mason@intel.com> <20130120234714.GA21708@kroah.com> <20130121175740.GF22208@jonmason-lab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130121175740.GF22208@jonmason-lab> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:57:41AM -0700, Jon Mason wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 03:47:14PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 02:02:29AM -0700, Jon Mason wrote: > > > Update NTB version to 0.25 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jon Mason > > > --- > > > drivers/ntb/ntb_hw.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/ntb/ntb_hw.c b/drivers/ntb/ntb_hw.c > > > index b792ccd..df86882 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/ntb/ntb_hw.c > > > +++ b/drivers/ntb/ntb_hw.c > > > @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ > > > #include "ntb_regs.h" > > > > > > #define NTB_NAME "Intel(R) PCI-E Non-Transparent Bridge Driver" > > > -#define NTB_VER "0.24" > > > +#define NTB_VER "0.25" > > > > I'm not objecting to this, but in the end, does it really matter? Why > > not just stick with whatever kernel version you are using? Keeping this > > up to date is going to be hard over the long haul, right? > > Currently, it is a convenient way to verify the people testing the > code are running the latest version, since they are usually running > their tests on a stable kernel. As the code becomes more stable, I > can see this becoming unnecessary and I will remove it then. Ok, that sounds good, thanks. greg k-h