[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range
    Christoph Hellwig <> 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.

    > GPL violation and thus copyright violation issues in Linux is the
    > last thing IBM wants to see in the press with the current mess going
    > on, right?

    Well this is a chicken-and-egg, isn't it. The only way in which we can
    audit the IBM code for its derivedness is for the source to be made
    available. Although not necessarily under GPL. Or we accept Paul's claim,
    which I personally am inclined to do.

    Look, this isn't going anywhere. We have a perfectly reasonable request
    from Paul to make this symbol available for IBM's filesystem. The usual
    way to handle this sort of thing is to say "ooh. shit. hard." and not
    reply to the email. That is not adequate and hopefully Paul will not let
    us get away with it.

    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.

    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.

    But at the end of the day, if we decide to not export this symbol, we owe
    Paul a good, solid reason, yes?
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.021 / U:23.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site