>Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> > + *
> > + * Written by: Karen Xie (kxie@chelsio.com)  */
> > +
> > +#include "cxgb3i.h"
> > +
> > +#define DRV_MODULE_NAME         "cxgb3i"
> > +#define DRV_MODULE_VERSION      "1.0.0"

quoted text
>I'd suggest that the version number just be removed.  It becomes
meaningless (and often misleading) once a driver is in the mainline
kernel.  People will >update the driver without changing the version
number.  Code external to the driver but which affects it can change.

quoted text
>The kernel version identifier is really the only way in whcih you and
your support people can reproduce a user's code.

quoted text
> > +#define DRV_MODULE_RELDATE      "May 1, 2008"

quoted text
>Ditto.


It gives us a stick to ask vendors to maintain upstream versions of
driver code in the distros. 

While we are at this. I believe that there is not much of a standard for
driver versioning. If we automatically get a driver version from the
kernel version then it solves both problems. Thoughts ??

Thanks,
Shyam
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/