From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.9 0/11] Add MODULE_VERSION to several network drivers Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:22:05 -0400 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20041021082205.A29340@tuxdriver.com> References: <20041020141146.C8775@tuxdriver.com> <1098350269.2810.17.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, davem@davemloft.net, john.ronciak@intel.com, ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com, akpm@osdl.org, romieu@fr.zoreil.com, ctindel@users.sourceforge.net, fubar@us.ibm.com, greearb@candelatech.com Return-path: To: Arjan van de Ven Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1098350269.2810.17.camel@laptop.fenrus.com>; from arjan@fenrus.demon.nl on Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:17:49AM +0200 Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:17:49AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 20:11, John W. Linville wrote: > > Patches to add MODULE_VERSION lines to several network drivers... > > > > Here is the list: > > have you checked if the version of these drivers is actually useful? (eg > updated when the driver changes) If it's not I'd say adding a > MODULE_VERSION to it makes no sense whatsoever. Why do I feel like I'm being baited...? :-) I would have to suspect that if a version string exists, that it has at least some meaning to the primary developers/maintainters. It certainly is beyond my control to force the maintainers to give meaning to their version strings. Is this a political statement against the MODULE_VERSION macro and/or its purpose? I'm not overly interested in debating that one... John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com