[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150226113054.GA4191@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:30:54 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jgross@...e.com,
stefan.bader@...onical.com, luto@...capital.net, hmh@....eng.br,
yigal@...xistor.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, Elliott@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/7] x86, mm: Add set_memory_wt() for WT
* Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 08:22 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> >
> > > +int set_pages_array_wt(struct page **pages, int addrinarray)
> > > +{
> > > + return _set_pages_array(pages, addrinarray, _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WT);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_pages_array_wt);
> >
> > So by default we make new APIs EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(): we
> > don't want proprietary modules mucking around with new code
> > PAT interfaces, we only want modules we can analyze and fix
> > in detail.
>
> Right. I have one question for this case. This
> set_pages_array_wt() extends the set_pages_array_xx()
> family, which are all exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL()
> today. In this case, should we keep them exported in the
> consistent manner, or should we still use GPL when adding
> a new one?
Still keep it GPL, it's a new API that old modules
obviously don't use.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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