[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <562D860B.2060008@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:46:51 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] bpf: introduce bpf_perf_event_output() helper
On 2015/10/24 1:25, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 10/23/15 9:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:02:00AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On 10/23/15 7:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:02:34PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>>> +static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_event_output_proto = {
>>>>>> + .func = bpf_perf_event_output,
>>>>>> + .gpl_only = false,
>>>> Oh ?
>>>
>>> no particular reason. key helper bpf_probe_read() is gpl, so all
>>> bpf for tracing progs have to be gpl.
>>> If you feel strongly about it, I can change it.
>>
>> All the perf symbols are export GPL, so I suppose this should be true.
>
> ok. will send a patch.
>
Can we (or have we already) setup some rules for licensing? Which part
should be GPL? Who has the response to decide it?
Thank you.
--
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