Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions

Zachary Amsden wrote:
> This turned out really hideous looking to me.  Can't we split the
> struct into GPL'd and non-GPL'd functions instead?  We still have the
> same granularity, and none of this function call to an indirect
> function call nonsense. 

It's not pretty, but I think having paravirt_ops and paravirt_ops_gpl
would be worse.  I'd be sympathetic to the idea of splitting
paravirt_ops up by function groupings, but splitting it by license seems
like a maintenance headache with no real upside.  Besides, patching will
solve everything (tm).

    J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions
    • From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is this bug too obvious?
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]