Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jul 2014 14:13:29 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] GenWQE: Increase driver version number |
| |
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:40:35PM +0200, Frank Haverkamp wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Am Freitag, den 06.06.2014, 14:07 +0200 schrieb Frank Haverkamp: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 05.06.2014, 09:00 -0700 schrieb Greg KH: > > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:23:04AM +0200, Frank Haverkamp wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 04.06.2014, 08:54 -0700 schrieb Greg KH: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:57:53AM -0300, Kleber Sacilotto de Souza wrote: > > > > > > Increase genwqe driver version number. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <klebers@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/misc/genwqe/genwqe_driver.h | 2 +- > > > > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/genwqe/genwqe_driver.h b/drivers/misc/genwqe/genwqe_driver.h > > > > > > index cd52631..a506e9a 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/misc/genwqe/genwqe_driver.h > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/genwqe/genwqe_driver.h > > > > > > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ > > > > > > #include <asm/byteorder.h> > > > > > > #include <linux/genwqe/genwqe_card.h> > > > > > > > > > > > > -#define DRV_VERS_STRING "2.0.15" > > > > > > +#define DRV_VERS_STRING "2.0.21" > > > > > > > > > > Why is this even needed? Can't you go off of the kernel version number > > > > > now? Who needs / wants this number? > > > > > > > > I am aware that if just considering the mainline kernels, we could use > > > > the kernel version itself for the purpose of identifying which code we > > > > are running. > > > > > > Which is what you are patching here :) > > > > > > > But in our lab we are running multiple back-ported versions of this > > > > driver on different Linux distributions using different kernel versions. > > > > > > Then deal with that in the backported code, the upstream kernel doesn't > > > care about this. > > > > > > > Our user-space software needs to know if the driver has or has not > > > > bug-fixes or features. For this purpose, we are using this extra number. > > > > > > Why would you rely on a version number for this, shouldn't you be able > > > to tell with your api what features are present? > > > > For version "2.0.15" there is no automatic recovery for certain > > problems, for "2.0.21" there is. > > > > I personally use the driver versions sysfs entry if a user complains > > that something e.g. the recovery is not working right. First thing I am > > asking for is the version of the code/driver as part of the debug data. > > If that is not matching my expectations, I will tell the user to update > > the code. > > > > In the current example new applications could more gracefully handle > > failing recovery scenarios by knowing that the old version of the code > > cannot properly handle certain problems. And it could this without > > knowing if it is using a driver which is in the mainline tree or if it > > is a back-ported version. > > > > Therefore I find it much more convenient for us to handle such things > > and I would kindly ask you to accept patch 4/4. > > > > I talked a bit with a colleague about version numbers for kernel > drivers. He pointed me on to the fact that when other people contribute > to our code, they will mostly not alter my version number, which is > certainly ok. That in turn makes it impossible for me to figure out the > exact code version from my own (internal) version number. > > So at the end it is the kernel version number or maybe the git checksum > used to build the code what enables me to identify the exact version of > the code. If this be the case, than I wonder, if we should not remove > the "version" sysfs entry entirely. I mean, if you reject the update to > it anyways ;-).
I suggest just removing the version entirely. I'll take this patch, but can you send a follow-on one removing it?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |