[PATCH] net: l2tp: remove unneeded MODULE_VERSION() usage

[PATCH] net: l2tp: remove unneeded MODULE_VERSION() usage

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

Remove MODULE_VERSION(), as it isn't needed at all: the only version
making sense is the kernel version.

Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
---
 net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c    | 1 -
 net/l2tp/l2tp_debugfs.c | 1 -
 net/l2tp/l2tp_eth.c     | 1 -
 net/l2tp/l2tp_ip.c      | 1 -
 net/l2tp/l2tp_ip6.c     | 1 -
 net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c | 1 -
 net/l2tp/l2tp_ppp.c     | 1 -
 7 files changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
index f82ea12bac37..29da8b28046f 100644
--- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
+++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
@@ -1784,4 +1784,3 @@ module_exit(l2tp_exit);
 MODULE_AUTHOR("James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("L2TP core");
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-MODULE_VERSION(L2TP_DRV_VERSION);
diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_debugfs.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_debugfs.c
index 35bb4f3bdbe0..fa84078d1809 100644
--- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_debugfs.c
+++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_debugfs.c
@@ -345,4 +345,3 @@ module_exit(l2tp_debugfs_exit);
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("L2TP debugfs driver");
-MODULE_VERSION("1.0");
diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_eth.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_eth.c
index d3b520b9b2c9..d0569e993574 100644
--- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_eth.c
+++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_eth.c
@@ -381,5 +381,4 @@ module_exit(l2tp_eth_exit);
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("L2TP ethernet pseudowire driver");
-MODULE_VERSION("1.0");
 MODULE_ALIAS_L2TP_PWTYPE(5);
diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip.c
index 0d7c887a2b75..f02909157e25 100644
--- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip.c
+++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip.c
@@ -677,7 +677,6 @@ module_exit(l2tp_ip_exit);
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("L2TP over IP");
-MODULE_VERSION("1.0");
 
 /* Use the value of SOCK_DGRAM (2) directory, because __stringify doesn't like
  * enums
diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip6.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip6.c
index d148766f40d1..8fa37a30347a 100644
--- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip6.c
+++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_ip6.c
@@ -810,7 +810,6 @@ module_exit(l2tp_ip6_exit);
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Chris Elston <celston@katalix.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("L2TP IP encapsulation for IPv6");
-MODULE_VERSION("1.0");
 
 /* Use the value of SOCK_DGRAM (2) directory, because __stringify doesn't like
  * enums
diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c
index f5a9bdc4980c..89b85371d4d3 100644
--- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c
+++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c
@@ -1032,5 +1032,4 @@ module_exit(l2tp_nl_cleanup);
 MODULE_AUTHOR("James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("L2TP netlink");
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-MODULE_VERSION("1.0");
 MODULE_ALIAS_GENL_FAMILY("l2tp");
diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_ppp.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_ppp.c
index c54cb59593ef..4b4be64e3fe2 100644
--- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_ppp.c
+++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_ppp.c
@@ -1755,6 +1755,5 @@ module_exit(pppol2tp_exit);
 MODULE_AUTHOR("James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PPP over L2TP over UDP");
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
-MODULE_VERSION(PPPOL2TP_DRV_VERSION);
 MODULE_ALIAS_NET_PF_PROTO(PF_PPPOX, PX_PROTO_OL2TP);
 MODULE_ALIAS_L2TP_PWTYPE(7);
-- 
2.11.0

Re: [PATCH] net: l2tp: remove unneeded MODULE_VERSION() usage

[David Miller]

From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@metux.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:36:13 +0100

> Remove MODULE_VERSION(), as it isn't needed at all: the only version
> making sense is the kernel version.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>

Is there a plan to remove MODULE_VERSION across the entire kernel tree?

Where is that documented?

Otherwise what gave you the reason to make this change in the first place?

No context, no high level explanation of what's going on, so it's hard
to review and decide whether to accept your change sorry.

At the least, you will have to write a more complete commit log message.

Re: [PATCH] net: l2tp: remove unneeded MODULE_VERSION() usage

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

On 12.12.19 20:03, David Miller wrote:

Hi,

> Is there a plan to remove MODULE_VERSION across the entire kernel tree?

I'm not entirely sure, but for all I know it just doesn't make sense at
all to have it (maybe except for OOT modules) and already was removed in
several places. For example, Greg cleansed it from the input subsys a
few years ago:

	https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/22/480

Similar patch for gpio subsys was accepted recently.

This got my attention by some discussion on some patches introducing new
module w/ including such macro call. The consensus from the discussion
was that the MODULE_VERSION() shouldn't be used, so I prepared some
patches to remove it in many places.

If you like to keep it in, give me a clear reject (maybe also a short
list of other areas under your maintainership), so I can skip it out
and don't bother you again :)

Personally, I believe, we shouldn't keep things that don't really serve
any purpose. Does anybody ever actually use it ?


By the way: we've got a similar thing with network devices, they've got
a version field. But it seems not all drivers filling it.

What is that used for ?



--mtx

---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

Re: [PATCH] net: l2tp: remove unneeded MODULE_VERSION() usage

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:03:54AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@metux.net>
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:36:13 +0100
>
> > Remove MODULE_VERSION(), as it isn't needed at all: the only version
> > making sense is the kernel version.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <info@metux.net>
>
> Is there a plan to remove MODULE_VERSION across the entire kernel tree?
>
> Where is that documented?
>
> Otherwise what gave you the reason to make this change in the first place?

Dave, see this conversation which I had two years ago with positive
responses from many respectable developers.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2017-June/004421.html

Greg's response:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2017-June/004441.html
Linus's response:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2017-June/004426.html

Thanks

>
> No context, no high level explanation of what's going on, so it's hard
> to review and decide whether to accept your change sorry.
>
> At the least, you will have to write a more complete commit log message.