On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 13:19 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2007 13:15:36 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 30 2007 13:00, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >On Monday 30 April 2007 12:50:09 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:28:14PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Otherwise non GPL modules cannot even do basic operations
> > >> > like disabling interrupts anymore, which would be excessive.
> > >> >
> > >> > Longer term should split the single structure up into
> > >> > internal and external symbols and not export the internal
> > >> > ones at all.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> > >>
> > >> Ingo was dead-set against this and I kinda agree.
> > >
> > >The problem is that without this non GPL modules cannot even disable
> > >interrupts anymore. That is imho too radical.
> >
> > Perhaps we can have a paravirt_ops2 that specifically deals with
> > interrupt en/disable, and export that instead?
>
> Yes that is what the "Longer term ..." paragraph above refers to.
> However it would need some restructuring in the code.
FWIW I think doing this first will be better, exposing _all_ to non GNU
modules will weaken whatever case we might have to take it away later.
So, NACK from me too.
I don't want to hear the whining; but it was allowed in .22, so why
should we not be able to do this in .23.... or whatever.
-
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/
[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]
