On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:49:37AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Thanks for pointing this out, Andi. I've been just now writing more or > > > less the same thing; ditching that and will reuse your patch instead. > > > > > > Why was the more aggresive version (6cfb521ac0d5b) merged into Linus' > > > tree > > > instead of that? > > > > Greg prefered using modversions > > Ah. OK, Greg: I'll eat my hat (I've heard that's very popular these times) > if there is a major enterprise distro that doesn't revert this patch > immediately.
But will Andi's patch work well for you? Adding a MODULE_INFO() tag to every module? I just thought since you were already using modversions in enterprise distros already, that adding it there would be the simplest. If I am wrong, great, let's revert this and add something that you really will use, otherwise it's just pointless code :) Perhaps adding a MODULE_INFO() tag for the entire gcc and ld flags would be nice in the end, as others have pointed out in this thread, but I don't know if that solves your issue here or not. thanks, greg k-h
