Re: [patch 4/4] [TULIP] Rev tulip version

[Andy Gospodarek]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:07:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 3/12/07, Valerie Henson <val_henson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>--- tulip-2.6-mm-linux.orig/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
> >>+++ tulip-2.6-mm-linux/drivers/net/tulip/tulip_core.c
> >>@@ -17,11 +17,11 @@
> >>
> >> #define DRV_NAME       "tulip"
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_TULIP_NAPI
> >>-#define DRV_VERSION    "1.1.14-NAPI" /* Keep at least for test */
> >>+#define DRV_VERSION    "1.1.15-NAPI" /* Keep at least for test */
> >> #else
> >>-#define DRV_VERSION    "1.1.14"
> >>+#define DRV_VERSION    "1.1.15"
> >> #endif
> >>-#define DRV_RELDATE    "May 11, 2002"
> >>+#define DRV_RELDATE    "Feb 27, 2007"
> >
> >Why not just drop this? What purpose does a per-module revision have
> >for in-kernel drivers anyway?
> 
> It's the maintainer's call.  Sometimes it eases parsing bug reports, and 
> tracking changes as your drivers get backported to various enterprise 
> operating systems(tm).  Sometimes it just gets in the way.
> 

It's good to keep this type of information in drivers.  I've been
thinking lately that it would be nice to even expand it a little bit
(maybe include the commit sum) so its easier to help those who aren't
running the latest upstream kernels on their boxes....

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