[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5f0a5ea7-2d48-435f-aaa0-82b6ef8cfcc5@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 22:02:30 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Nick Alcock" <nick.alcock@...cle.com>,
"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: "Luis Chamberlain" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
"Masahiro Yamada" <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, eugene.loh@...cle.com,
kris.van.hees@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/13] kbuild: remove MODULE_LICENSE/AUTHOR/DESCRIPTION in
non-modules
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022, at 21:03, Nick Alcock wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2022, Geert Uytterhoeven uttered the following:
> Only MODULE_LICENSE invokes MODULE_FILE and thus ends up introducing a
> KBUILD_MODOBJS entry that triggers things going wrong iff not a module:
> so only it needs to go out (or be replaced with a variant that doesn't
> invoke MODULE_FILE, if you want to keep the license in too --
That sounds like a better alternative
> but if the thing is no longer a standalone entity at all I'm not sure
> what meaning it could possibly have).
As far as I can tell, the general trend is to make more things modules,
so there is a good chance that these come back eventually. If the
information in the MODULE_LICENSE field isn't wrong, I would just
leave it in there.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists