Re: Question on MODULE_VERSION macro

[Brian King <brking@us.ibm.com>]

Any update on the MODULE_VERSION macro getting into mainline?

-Brian


Rusty Russell wrote:
> 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.
> 


-- 
Brian King
eServer Storage I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center