netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/18] ionic: Add basic framework for IONIC Network device driver

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]

Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:54:26 -0700
From:   Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/18] ionic: Add basic framework for IONIC
 Network device driver

On 6/24/19 1:07 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:13:31 -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>>> +#define DRV_VERSION		"0.11.0-k"
>>> DRV_VERSION is pretty useless. What you really want to know is the
>>> kernel git tree and commit. The big distributions might backport this
>>> version of the driver back to the old kernel with a million
>>> patches. At which point 0.11.0-k tells you nothing much.
>> Yes, any version numbering thing from the big distros is put into
>> question, but I find this number useful to me for tracking what has been
>> put into the upstream kernel.  This plus the full kernel version gives
>> me a pretty good idea of what I'm looking at.
> Still, we strongly encourage ditching the driver version.
> It encourages upstream first development model among other benefits.

< insert typical whining about internal vendor needs that have
    nothing to do with upstream practices :-) >

Sure.
sln