tulip.c v0.91g in 2.2.x or 2.3.x series?

Brian Leeper qaz@doubled.com
Thu Oct 28 23:03:12 1999

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Donald Becker wrote:

> See the discussion last week on the Linux-kernel mailing list:
>   http://www.tux.org/hypermail
> The subject was titled  "Re: PATCH 2.3.23 pre 2 compile fixes"

Donald, you DO have a good point(several in fact). Why are the drivers in
the stock kernel being patched by 3rd parties and the driver version
numbers NOT being changed somehow to relect those patches? 

>From my point of view, it's problematic at best. How am I to know that
v1.06 of eepro100.c in the current release kernel isn't the same one as
found on your website? They both have the same version number, and it is
standard practice to change the version number of a given piece of
software when a patch is applied. 

I remember a case where I tried to take the version of eepro100.c in the
stock 2.2.x kernel and compile it in a 2.0.x kernel. It failed, yet the
same version of the driver from the CESDIS website worked fine. 

For troubleshooting purposes, it's downright stupid. And I don't even
have to look at the comments for the "v1.06" of the 2.2.x eepro100.c to
know that it doesn't say anything about these changes vis-a-vis your