[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200410114444.73be173a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:44:44 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"K . Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] block: genhd: export-GPL generic disk device
type
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 08:33:57 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I understand your need here, however we do not export things for
> modules, when there are no in-kernel module users, sorry.
This "we don't cater to out-of-tree modules" even when they are GPL seems
to always baffle me. Especially since we have a high bar of accepting out
of tree modules especially if they duplicate some functionality of an
existing infrastructure of the kernel. I like choice, and coming from
someone that spent over a decade working on code that has been out of tree,
I'm a little sympathetic to the cause ;-)
I guess we should be open to allowing LTTng modules in the kernel as well,
even though it is yet another tracing framework. It's not like its going
away. And perhaps by doing so, ftrace and perf could start taking advantage
of anything that LTTng brings.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists