![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:51:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > I don't understand why IBM is pushing this dubious change right now, > > It isn't a dubious change, on technical grounds. It is reasonable for a > distributed filesystem to want to be able to shoot down pte's which map > sections of pagecache. Just as it is reasonable for the filesystem to be > able to shoot down the pagecache itself. > > We've exported much lower-level stuff than this, because some in-kernel > module happened to use it. Probably not always the right choice, though... I highly suspect we far to much of our intestines are easily available. [snip] > We need to give Paul a reasoned and logically consistent answer to his > request. For that we need to establish some sort of framework against > which to make a decision and then make the decision. > > One approach is a fait-accomplis from the top-level maintainer. Here, > we're trying to do it in a different way. > > I have proposed two criteria upon which this should be judged: > > a) Does the export make technical sense? Do filesystems have > legitimate need for access to this symbol? > > (really, a) is sufficient grounds, but for real-world reasons:) > > b) Does the IBM filsystem meet the kernel's licensing requirements? > > > It appears that the answers are a): yes and b) probably. a.) Definitely b.) Perhaps > Please, feel free to add additional criteria. We could also ask "do we > want to withhold this symbols to encourage IBM to GPL the filesystem" or > "do we simply refuse to export any symbol which is not used by any GPL > software" (if so, why?). Over to you. Well, I wasn't altogether joking when I suggested IBM should GPL gpfs. A couple of questions: * Is gpfs a commercial product in the sense that it's something IBM earns revenue from? * Does gpfs contain third party "Intellectual Property" (no, I'm not particularly fond of using that expression, but I digress) If the answer is NO to both of these questions, why _not_ GPL the code? If the answer is NO to only the second question, is the revenue from gpfs big enough to warrant keeping it proprietary? > But at the end of the day, if we decide to not export this symbol, we owe > Paul a good, solid reason, yes? Yup. Silence isn't always golden, sometimes it's outright shitty. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||