From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753285AbZF1L6e (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:58:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750803AbZF1L6Y (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:58:24 -0400 Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com ([64.235.106.9]:58641 "EHLO astoria.ccjclearline.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750757AbZF1L6X (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:58:23 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:56:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: does CONFIG_MODULE_SRCVERSION_ALL depend on MODULE_VERSION? Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org from the help text for CONFIG_MODULE_SRCVERSION_ALL: "Modules which contain a MODULE_VERSION get an extra "srcversion" field inserted into their modinfo section, which contains a sum of the source files which made it. This helps maintainers see exactly which source was used to build a module (since others sometimes change the module source without updating the version). With this option, such a "srcversion" field will be created for all modules. If unsure, say N." that first sentence suggests that calculating a module's "srcversion" value depends on whether you've provided a MODULE_VERSION value, but that doesn't seem to be the case based on a test i just made. and it seems to disagree with the later sentence that this CONFIG option will generate a srcversion value for "all" modules regardless. clarification? it seems that first sentence is misleading, unless i'm misreading it. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ========================================================================