[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules

    Ingo Molnar <> writes:

    >> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary
    >> modules. So I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people
    >> react. [...]
    > ugh, this is unbelievably stupid move technically - so a very strong
    > NACK. Allowing marker use in unfixable modules (today it's placing
    > markers into unfixable modules,

    As the thread suggested, this can benefit us more than it benefits
    them, because it may let us see more into the blobs.

    > tomorrow it's marker use by such modules) has only one clear and
    > predictable effect: it turns marker calls into essential ABIs [...]

    The marker_probe_*register calls are already EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'd, so
    that covers your "tomorrow" case. NACK that all you like when/if
    someone proposes changing that.

    > [if the proprietary modules attach to kernel markers ...] then all
    > the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the
    > kernel subsystem maintainers that use [you mean: define] markers.

    (In a way, it would be a nice problem to have. At this moment, there
    are still no markers actually committed within -mm nor -linus.)

    - FChE

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-20 21:23    [W:0.020 / U:9.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site