> I don't see why the necessarity of a kernel stub driver is a killer > argument. The chip internals, which companies might want to protect are > certainly not in the interrupt registers. So they can go off and write themselves a driver. Without putting junk in the kernel "just in case", and if the driver and the user space code using it are closely interdependant I'd suggest they look up the *legal* definition of derivative work. - 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/
- References:
- [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
- Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
- Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
- [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Patch: dynticks: idle load balancing
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC] Patch: dynticks: idle load balancing
- Previous by thread: Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- Next by thread: Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
- Index(es):
 |