Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API

Daniel,

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> This has the makings of a nice stable internal kernel api.  Why do we want
> to provide this nice stable internal api to proprietary modules?

Why not?  Not all non-GPL modules are proprietary.  Do we lose
something by making a nice stable api available to non-derived
modules?
-
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: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
    • From: Chase Venters <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
    • From: Sridhar Samudrala <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
    • From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
    • From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
    • From: Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: more than 3 GB in userspace (4G/4G patch?) for 2.6.16
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc6-mm2
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API
• 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]