Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Apr 2020 08:45:03 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] block: genhd: export-GPL generic disk device type |
| |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 08:33:57 +0200 > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > I understand your need here, however we do not export things for > > modules, when there are no in-kernel module users, sorry. > > This "we don't cater to out-of-tree modules" even when they are GPL seems > to always baffle me. Especially since we have a high bar of accepting out > of tree modules especially if they duplicate some functionality of an > existing infrastructure of the kernel. I like choice, and coming from > someone that spent over a decade working on code that has been out of tree, > I'm a little sympathetic to the cause ;-)
We can't do anything for out-of-tree modules as they suddenly become "higher priority" than in-tree code if you have to not do specific changes or extra work for them. Which is not fair at all to the in-tree code developers at all.
With drivers/staging/ we removed the barrier for accepting any license compliant driver, so that solved the huge majority of these issues.
> I guess we should be open to allowing LTTng modules in the kernel as well, > even though it is yet another tracing framework. It's not like its going > away. And perhaps by doing so, ftrace and perf could start taking advantage > of anything that LTTng brings.
That is up to you all, as you are the one preventing this from being merged in the tree, not me :)
Again, don't make us do _more_ work for out-of-tree modules than we do for in-tree modules, that's just crazy to expect.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |