[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160219162329.GA24924@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 08:23:29 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
david.vrabel@...rix.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, mcb30@...e.org,
jgross@...e.com, ming.lei@...onical.com, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, jbaron@...mai.com, ananth@...ibm.com,
anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/7] sections.h: add sections header to collect all
section info
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:45:53AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Linux makes extensive use of custom ELF header sections,
> documentation for these are well scatterred. Unify this
> documentation in a central place.
Minor questions:
> + <para>
> + You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
> + License along with this documentation; if not, write to the Free
> + Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston,
> + MA 02111-1307 USA
> + </para>
Unless you are willing to personally track the office moves of the FSF
for the next 20+ years, just drop this paragraph please :)
> +++ b/include/linux/sections.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
> +#ifndef _LINUX_SECTIONS_H
> +#define _LINUX_SECTIONS_H
> +/*
> + * Linux ELF sections
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2016 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> + * (at your option) any later version.
Do you really mean "any later version"?
> + * Due to this file being licensed under the GPL there is controversy over
> + * whether this permits you to write a module that #includes this file
> + * without placing your module under the GPL. Please consult a lawyer for
> + * advice before doing this.
Interesting wording, I don't think there's any "controversy" here, so
I'd drop that word if at all possible.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists