Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: Replace driver version to be kernel version

From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Shannon Nelson <snelson@pensando.io>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Michal Kalderon <michal.kalderon@marvell.com>,
	RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: Replace driver version to be kernel version
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 23:22:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200126222253.GX22304@unicorn.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0755f526-73cb-e926-2785-845fec0f51dd@pensando.io>

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 02:12:38PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> On 1/26/20 1:24 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 01:17:52PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> > > On 1/26/20 1:08 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > The long-standing policy in kernel that we don't really care about
> > > > out-of-tree code.
> > > That doesn't mean we need to be aggressively against out-of-tree code.  One
> > > of the positive points about Linux and loadable modules has always been the
> > > flexibility that allows and encourages innovation, and helps enable more
> > > work and testing before a driver can become a fully-fledged part of the
> > > kernel.  This move actively discourages part of that flexibility and I think
> > > it is breaking part of the usefulness of modules.
> > You are mixing definitions, nothing stops those people to innovate and
> > develop their code inside kernel and as standalone modules too.
> > 
> > It just stops them to put useless driver version string inside ethtool.
> > If they feel that their life can't be without something from 90s, they
> > have venerable MODULE_VERSION() macro to print anything they want.
> > 
> Part of the pain of supporting our users is getting them to give us useful
> information about their problem.  The more commands I need them to run to
> get information about the environment, the less likely I will get anything
> useful.  We've been training our users over the years to use "ethtool -i" to
> get a good chunk of that info, with the knowledge that the driver version is
> only a hint, based upon the distro involved.  I don't want to lose that
> hint.  If anything, I'd prefer that we added a field for UTS_RELEASE in the
> ethtool output, but I know that's too much to ask.

At the same time, I've been trying to explain both our L1/L2 support
guys and our customers that "driver version" information reported by
"ethtool -i" is almost useless and that if they really want to identify
driver version, they should rather use srcversion as reported by modinfo
or sysfs.

Michal