On Friday 22 August 2008 12:48:44 pm Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:56 -0700
Karen Xie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH 4/4 2.6.28] cxgb3i - cxgb3i iscsi driver
From: Karen Xie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cxgb3i iSCSI driver.
Signed-off-by: Karen Xie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:56 -0700
Karen Xie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH 4/4 2.6.28] cxgb3i - cxgb3i iscsi driver
From: Karen Xie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cxgb3i iSCSI driver.
Signed-off-by: Karen Xie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm going to suggest that this not be merged in this form due to the
Andrew Morton wrote:
+ *
+ * Written by: Karen Xie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) */
+
+#include cxgb3i.h
+
+#define DRV_MODULE_NAME cxgb3i
+#define DRV_MODULE_VERSION 1.0.0
I'd suggest that the version number just be removed. It becomes
meaningless (and often misleading) once
David Miller wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
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
Look, what you're suggesting is to change existing practice and that
doesn't belong in the discussion of the review of a specific driver.
If you want to bring that up as a topic and change globally how that is
handled, bring that up as a seperate topic on linux-kernel.
Sounds reasonable.
Don't
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:37:53 +0530
Exactly. And I am also suggesting that the driver version is not
standard among different vendors.
It should not be standardized because every driver maintainer works
differently, and every driver is developed differently, and
