Messages in this thread | | | From | Chase Venters <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API | Date | Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:05:54 -0500 |
| |
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 18:42, Ben Greear wrote: > Chase Venters wrote: > > At least some of us feel like stable module APIs should be explicitly > > discouraged, because we don't want to offer comfort for code that > > refuses to live in the tree (since getting said code into the tree is > > often a goal). > > Some of us write modules for specific features that are not wanted in > the mainline kernel, even though they are pure GPL. Our life is hard > enough with out people setting out to deliberately make things more > difficult!
Fair enough, but if you are doing out of tree, pure GPL modules, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() isn't a bad thing, is it?
Don't mistake me for actually having a big opinion specifically about this socket API's usage of EXPORT_SYMBOL()... just raising some points that I think apply to these decisions in general. I don't really see a compelling reason for EXPORT_SYMBOL() over EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() on the socket APIs though... I'm trying to imagine what kind of legitimate non-GPL modules might use them.
> Ben
Thanks, Chase - 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/
| |