[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ilevu1q6.fsf@esperi.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:00:17 +0000
From: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@...cle.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] MODULE_LICENSE removals, sixth tranche
(Sorry about this, MTA delivered a bunch of stuff very late.)
On 3 Mar 2023, Luis Chamberlain verbalised:
> Stupid question, if you're removing MODULE_LICENSE() than why keep the
> other stupid MODULE_*() crap too? If its of no use, be gone!
I wish, but when I tried it it broke stuff. At least some MODULE_ things
have side effects -- MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE, maybe MODULE_ALIAS etc...
... and also I was getting complaints when I sent a tree out that did
that, along the lines of "if MODULE_LICENSE is the problem why not just
remove that". It seems one cannot win here, both options elicit
complaints.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists