On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 04/04/2007 02:33 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:26:04PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
>
> >>Can we have a MODULE_MAINTAINER to complement MODULE_AUTHOR?
> >
> >#define MODULE_MAINTAINER(x) MODULE_AUTHOR(x), please.
> >MODULE_AUTHOR really has meant maintainer in practice for ages, and it's
> >the only actually relevant for users information we should store.
>
> Given modules with multiple authors, current and non-current, I believe
> having "modinfo -m" tell the user whom to contact is an avantage.
Much bigger problems are:
- Who will maintain this information properly?
- What about modules that are maintained implicitely by the subsystem
maintainer?
And often a user can't be expected to locate the source of a problem, or
it might not be in a driver but in a subsystem.
For vendor kernels, the user should contact the vendor.
For ftp.kernel.org kernels, I don't see any better solution than telling
people to report problems to linux-kernel or the kernel Bugzilla and
routing them further from here.
> Rene.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
