On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 01:27:26PM +0100, Nam Cao wrote: > 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.
Why not get the module merged upstream so you don't have this problem anymore? > I can change to use a different mechanism. But surely I am not the only > one who write something that rely on this. I recommend changing it, as this is not needed in the tree :) I've been at a conference all week, will respin this patch series next week and resend, sorry for the delay. thanks, greg k-h
