[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100904154114.19501d6e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:41:14 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Calvin Walton <calvin.walton@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@....de>, miaox@...fujitsu.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] lib: improve the performance of memcpy and memmove
of the general version
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:59:02 -0400
Calvin Walton <calvin.walton@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 11:03 +0000, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Miao Xie:
> >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcpy);
> >
> > I think you need to change that to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, because the code
> > is now licensed under the GPL, and not the GPL plus kernel exceptions
> > (whatever they are, but they undoubtly exist), unlike the original
> > implementation.
>
> I wouldn't think so - the intent of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is to mark symbols
> that make it obvious that a module was derived from the Linux kernel, as
> opposed to some sort of generic driver that was just ported to a new
> interface. (It's not foolproof, it's more of a warning to developers.)
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was meant for symbols that were clearly internal
workings. EXPORT_SYMBOL() doesn't in any way imply or excuse GPL
compliance for any derivative work.
Using the FSF memcpy seems a good technical idea, and it'll no doubt
liven up the proprietary module makers lawyers as it'll make the FSF a
party to any infringement disputes 8)
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists