linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/10 v2] Generic Watchdog Timer Driver

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: <20110706191710.GO29245@infomag.iguana.be>
Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:17:10 +0200
From:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Watchdog Mailing List <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/10 v2] Generic Watchdog Timer Driver

Hi Arnd,

> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(watchdog_register_device);
> 
> How about making this EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL?

My opinion: the new framework has been created for 2 reasons:
1) consolidation of the code that is being repeated in each driver
2) to make it possible to support more then one driver.
If we want to support more then one driver, then the out-of-tree drivers
would benefit from using the API. Even the non-GPL ones.
My feeling is that if we restrict to GPL only, that we then can have the
situation where users will have problems loading the normal in-tree drivers
together with a non-gpl driver that also wants to use /dev/watchdog...
where it could use the same framework.
On the other hand: I don't think there will be really many non-GPL out of
tree drivers anyway.

Alan: what's your opinion?

Kind regards,
Wim.

--
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/