Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

relicensing them.

That's a pretty strong statement...

Well, I'm not making any kind of legal statement. I'm just pointing out that from a technical perspective, there's a large visible functional change from before if we use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(paravirt_ops) vs EXPORT_SYMBOL(paravirt_ops). Given that the whole point of paravirt_ops is to minimize visible changes, this seems counterproductive.

   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] paravirt.h
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] paravirt.h
    • From: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
    • From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [RFC] kallsyms_lookup always requires buffers
• Next by Date: [PATCH] elv_unregister: fix possible crash on module unload
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h
• 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]