lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-14 02:08    [W:0.080 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site