[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190625072317.GC30350@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:23:17 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Maling list - DRI developers
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] mm: export alloc_pages_vma
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:24:48AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I asked for this simply because it was not exported historically. In
> general I want to establish explicit export-type criteria so the
> community can spend less time debating when to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> [1].
>
> The thought in this instance is that it is not historically exported
> to modules and it is safer from a maintenance perspective to start
> with GPL-only for new symbols in case we don't want to maintain that
> interface long-term for out-of-tree modules.
>
> Yes, we always reserve the right to remove / change interfaces
> regardless of the export type, but history has shown that external
> pressure to keep an interface stable (contrary to
> Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst) tends to be less for
> GPL-only exports.
Fully agreed. In the end the decision is with the MM maintainers,
though, although I'd prefer to keep it as in this series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists