Re: Linux 4.4.256

[Guenter Roeck]

On 2/6/21 5:22 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 02:11:13PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Something like this looks more robust to me, it will use SUBLEVEL for
>> values 0 to 255 and 255 for any larger value:
>>
>> -	expr $(VERSION) \* 65536 + 0$(PATCHLEVEL) \* 256 + 0$(SUBLEVEL)); \
>> +	expr $(VERSION) \* 65536 + 0$(PATCHLEVEL) \* 256 + 255 \* (0$(SUBLEVEL) > 255) + 0$(SUBLEVEL) * (0$(SUBLEVEL \<= 255)); \
> 
> Bah, I obviously missed a backslash above and forgot spaces around parens.
> Here's a tested version:
> 
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 7d86ad6ad36c..9b91b8815b40 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -1252,7 +1252,7 @@ endef
>  
>  define filechk_version.h
>  	echo \#define LINUX_VERSION_CODE $(shell                         \
> -	expr $(VERSION) \* 65536 + 0$(PATCHLEVEL) \* 256 + 0$(SUBLEVEL)); \
> +	expr $(VERSION) \* 65536 + 0$(PATCHLEVEL) \* 256 + 255 \* \( 0$(SUBLEVEL) \> 255 \) + 0$(SUBLEVEL) \* \( 0$(SUBLEVEL) \<= 255 \) ); \
>  	echo '#define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + (c))'
>  endef
>  

I like that version.

Two questions: Are there any concerns that KERNEL_VERSION(4, 4, 256)
matches KERNEL_VERSION(4, 5. 0), and do you plan to send this patch
upstream ?

Thanks,
Guenter