netdev - Re: linux-next: net/kbuild trees build failure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091208145435.GE15172@tuxdriver.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:54:35 -0500
From:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	reinette chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: net/kbuild trees build failure

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 06:38:19AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 05:28:53PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:42:09PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> > > reinette chatre napsal(a):
> > 
> > > > Right - could we please use the solution that works at compile time? I
> > > > used UTS_RELEASE after learning about its use in init/version.c, would
> > > > that not make it an approved solution?
> > > 
> > > It seems there is some misunderstanding.
> > 
> > Alright, if Stephen's fix is acceptable then your suggestion is fine.
> > Sam seemed to suggest that Stephen's fix was a stop-gap.
> 
> The need to use utsrelease seems very prominent in external drivers.
> But a quick grep turned up only a single staging driver in-tree that
> include utsrelease.
> So whatever problem this driver solves using utsrelease it is not shared
> with the rest of the in-tree drivers.
> 
> So no - it is not a stop-gap. It is more a "is it really needed?".

What problem are you trying to solve by eliminating it?

The iwlwifi team was trying to eliminate the nearly-useless version
number currently used in MODULE_VERSION.  As I said, I would prefer
to simply eliminate the MODULE_VERSION clause.  But the iwlwifi
team likes having something there, and UTS_RELEASE seems at least as
informative as what they had before.

So, the options are a) leave the useless version string as-is; b)
require the version string to get bumped on every update; c) use
UTS_RELEASE as a version string; or d) forcibly remove MODULE_VERSION
from the iwlwifi drivers.  Which would you advocate?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@...driver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html