[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uF-TpQpZYgZkt3pt55TNcoB-8dU3NCHYKmswTsC=Ka4rw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:20:50 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
"open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/A..." <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [REPOST PATCH 1/8] fence: dma-buf cross-device synchronization (v17)
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()? Same goes for all of the exports in here.
>> >> > Traditionally all of the driver core exports have been with this
>> >> > marking, any objection to making that change here as well?
>> >>
>> >> tbh, I prefer EXPORT_SYMBOL().. well, I'd prefer even more if there
>> >> wasn't even a need for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), but sadly it is a fact of
>> >> life. We already went through this debate once with dma-buf. We
>> >> aren't going to change $evil_vendor's mind about non-gpl modules. The
>> >> only result will be a more flugly convoluted solution (ie. use syncpt
>> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL() on top of fence EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()) just as a
>> >> workaround, with the result that no-one benefits.
>> >
>> > It has been proven that using _GPL() exports have caused companies to
>> > release their code "properly" over the years, so as these really are
>> > Linux-only apis, please change them to be marked this way, it helps
>> > everyone out in the end.
>>
>> Well, maybe that is the true in some cases. But it certainly didn't
>> work out that way for dma-buf. And I think the end result is worse.
>>
>> I don't really like coming down on the side of EXPORT_SYMBOL() instead
>> of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), but if we do use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() then the
>> result will only be creative workarounds using the _GPL symbols
>> indirectly by whatever is available via EXPORT_SYMBOL(). I don't
>> really see how that will be better.
>
> You are saying that you _know_ companies will violate our license, so
> you should just "give up"? And how do you know people aren't working on
> preventing those "indirect" usages as well? :)
>
> Sorry, I'm not going to give up here, again, it has proven to work in
> the past in changing the ways of _very_ large companies, why stop now?
Dave should chime in here since currently dma-buf is _GPL and the
drm_prime.c wrapper for it is not (and he merged that one, contributed
from said $vendor). And since we're gfx people everything we do is MIT
licensed (that's where X is from after all), so _GPL for for drm stuff
really doesn't make a lot of sense for us. ianal and all that applies.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
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