On Friday, 3 February 2023 09:29:50 CET Jiri Pirko wrote: [...] > Why kernel version is not enough for you? My point is, why to maintain > internal driver version alongside with the kernel version? [...] > >Also note that we can't do a simple kernel version to year > >notation mapping in userspace in batctl. OpenWrt uses the most > >recent Linux LTS release. But might feature a backport of a more > >recent batman-adv which is newer than the one this stable kernel > >would provide. Or people also often use Debian stable but compile > >and use the latest batman-adv version with it. > > Yeah, for out of tree driver, have whatever.
A while back, my personal opinion changed after there were various Linux
developers/maintainers were trying to either remove it or wondering about this
bump. The idea which I've proposed was to:
* still ship the "backports" like out-of-tree tarball with a module version -
but directly in its "compat" code
* continue to use in projects (which for whatever reason cannot use the in-
kernel implementation) a version which represents their upstream backports
tarball + their (patch) revision: Something like "2022.0-openwrt-7"
* for the in-kernel module, just return either
- remove the version information completely from the kernel module
MODULE_VERSION + drop BATADV_ATTR_VERSION + modifying batctl to fetch that
from uname(). But of course, that would break old batctl versions [1]
- or by setting BATADV_SOURCE_VERSION to UTS_RELEASE (+suffix?) or
UTS_VERSION
But this wasn't well received when mentioning it to Simon+Linus (but I could
misremember the persons involved here).
Kind regards,
Sven
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201205085604.1e3fc...@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
