linux-kernel - Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45D262DC.2020008@goop.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:16:12 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
CC:	Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure,
 do individual functions

Zachary Amsden wrote:
> This turned out really hideous looking to me.  Can't we split the
> struct into GPL'd and non-GPL'd functions instead?  We still have the
> same granularity, and none of this function call to an indirect
> function call nonsense. 

It's not pretty, but I think having paravirt_ops and paravirt_ops_gpl
would be worse.  I'd be sympathetic to the idea of splitting
paravirt_ops up by function groupings, but splitting it by license seems
like a maintenance headache with no real upside.  Besides, patching will
solve everything (tm).

    J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/