[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <y0mzlst6tgi.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:17:33 -0400
From: fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>, 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
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
>> 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. [...]
>
> ugh, this is unbelievably stupid move technically - so a very strong
> NACK. Allowing marker use in unfixable modules (today it's placing
> markers into unfixable modules,
As the thread suggested, this can benefit us more than it benefits
them, because it may let us see more into the blobs.
> tomorrow it's marker use by such modules) has only one clear and
> predictable effect: it turns marker calls into essential ABIs [...]
The marker_probe_*register calls are already EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'd, so
that covers your "tomorrow" case. NACK that all you like when/if
someone proposes changing that.
> [if the proprietary modules attach to kernel markers ...] then all
> the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the
> kernel subsystem maintainers that use [you mean: define] markers.
(In a way, it would be a nice problem to have. At this moment, there
are still no markers actually committed within -mm nor -linus.)
- FChE
--
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