[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:29:46 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
russ.weight@...ux.dev, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
keescook@...omium.org, nathan@...nel.org, nicolas@...sle.eu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Introduce uts_release
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:01:26 +0900 Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> I do not see why it is useful.
> As you discussed in 3/4, if UTS_RELEASE is unneeded,
> it is better to get rid of it.
To be clear - the discussion on 3/4 was about the fact that netdev
already prints UTS_RELEASE into the version member of driver info
struct, as a default. So the drivers no longer have to. But there's
no user-observable change there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists