Petr Pavlu <[email protected]> writes: > On 3/13/26 3:20 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> Module "versions" do not make sense as the kernel is built all at once, >> the "version" is the overall kernel version number, so modules can not >> really be described as having a unique version given that they rely on >> the infrastructure of the whole kernel. >> >> For now, just make this an "empty" define, to keep existing code >> building properly as the tree is slowly purged of the use of this over >> time. >> >> This macro will be removed entirely in the future when there are no >> in-tree users. ... > The original patch "Add a MODULE_VERSION macro" [1] from 2004 doesn't > say much about the motivation for adding module versions, but it does > mention that they should be accessible via sysfs. That was implemented > a year later in commit c988d2b28454 ("[PATCH] modules: add version and > srcversion to sysfs") [2], which primarily discusses use cases related > to DKMS, and to administrators + tech support needing to know what is > actually loaded on the system. For the latter, I believe srcversion (or > something similar) should be sufficient.
I develop an external module. And our userspace program does rely on this to get the module's version on the user's system. This patch would break our program. I can change to use a different mechanism. But surely I am not the only one who write something that rely on this. Best regards, Nam
