lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range
    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 14:01    [W:0.048 / U:298.552 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site