[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080320083839.GA3569@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:38:39 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:27:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary modules. So
> I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people react. It only makes
> sure that a module that has been "forced" to be loaded won't have its markers
> used. It is important to leave this check to make sure the kernel does not crash
> by expecting the markers part of the struct module by mistake in the case there
> is an incorrect checksum.
I still disagree. Markers are per defintion a very linux specific API
and thus should stay internal.
--
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