[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m18x4axrx2.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:59:05 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: namespace support requires network modules to say "GPL"
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> writes:
>> Regardless of infringement it is incompatible with a complete network
>> namespace implementation. Further it sounds like the module you are
>> describing defines a kernel ABI without being merged and hopes that
>> ABI will still be supportable in the future. Honestly I think doing so
>> is horrible code maintenance policy.
>>
> I don't mind if the ABI changes, so long as I can still use something similar.
It has occurred to me that I am seeing an implication here that may in fact not
exist.
My impression of dev_get_by_xxxx is that the function is only able to be used
sanely when being part of the definition of a kernel/userspace interface. With
the further assumption on my part that you need to define a new instance of
dev_get_by_xxxx
It has just occurred to me that it is possible to reuse the SIOCBRADDIF
and SIOCBRDELIF for that same purpose without defining a new kernel/userspace
interface.
What and how are you using dev_get_by_xxx?
Eric
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists