Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1166324 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> - 2015-06-16 21:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> - 2015-06-17 00:30 +0200

#1166324 — Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:40:08PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 02:23:41AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 05:33:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > I tentatively put this (and the rest of the series) on a pci/resource
>>> > > branch.  I'm hoping you'll propose some clarification about
>>> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
>>> >
>>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() also serves to ensure only GPL modules can
>>> > only run that code. So for instance although we have "Dual BSD/GPL"
>>> > tags for modules pure "BSD" tags do not exist for module tags and
>>> > cannot run EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() code [0]. Also there is some folks
>>> > who do believe tha at run time all kernel modules are GPL [1] [2].
>>> > And to be precise even though the FSF may claim a list of licenses
>>> > are GPL-compatible we cannot rely on this list alone for our own
>>> > goals and if folks want to use our EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()s they must
>>> > discuss this on lkml [2].
>>>
>>> By "propose some clarification," I meant that I hoped you would propose a
>>> patch to Documentation/ that would give maintainers some guidance.
>>
>> I *really really* would hate to do so but only because you insist, I'll look
>> into this...
>
> OK done.

Bjorn,

This is now on Jonathan Corbet's tree and visible on linux-next:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=582ed8d51e2b6cb8a168c94852bca482685c2509

> Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to
> help.

Please let me know.

> Also as per review with Tomi, the framebuffer maintainer, he
> would prefer for only the required symbols to go through your tree.
> We'd then wait for the next merge window for them to perculate to
> Linus' tree and once there I'd send him a pull request for the
> framebuffer device driver changes alone. So this does mean we'll have
> no users of the symbols for a full release, but again, this is as per
> Tomi's preference. This strategy is also the preference then for the
> pci_iomap_wc() series as well. With that in mind, perhaps the lib
> patch can go in as we'd have no users but we do have a few future
> possible expected users.

I repoked Tomi about this topic with a new context provided, my
expressed hope was to just merge the fbvdev dependent changes for both
series (now both Acked by Tomi) through your tree.

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1166453

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:40:08PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 02:23:41AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 05:33:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I tentatively put this (and the rest of the series) on a pci/resource
>>>> > > branch.  I'm hoping you'll propose some clarification about
>>>> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
>>>> >
>>>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() also serves to ensure only GPL modules can
>>>> > only run that code. So for instance although we have "Dual BSD/GPL"
>>>> > tags for modules pure "BSD" tags do not exist for module tags and
>>>> > cannot run EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() code [0]. Also there is some folks
>>>> > who do believe tha at run time all kernel modules are GPL [1] [2].
>>>> > And to be precise even though the FSF may claim a list of licenses
>>>> > are GPL-compatible we cannot rely on this list alone for our own
>>>> > goals and if folks want to use our EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()s they must
>>>> > discuss this on lkml [2].
>>>>
>>>> By "propose some clarification," I meant that I hoped you would propose a
>>>> patch to Documentation/ that would give maintainers some guidance.
>>>
>>> I *really really* would hate to do so but only because you insist, I'll look
>>> into this...
>>
>> OK done.
>
> Bjorn,
>
> This is now on Jonathan Corbet's tree and visible on linux-next:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=582ed8d51e2b6cb8a168c94852bca482685c2509

Sorry, I'm just not comfortable with using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() this
way.  I'm happy to use it when it has a technical justification, e.g.,
for internal interfaces where users of the interface are clearly
derived works.  But pci_iomap_wc() is not in that category, and I
think it should be symmetric with similar interfaces like pci_iomap()
and ioremap_wc().

I don't want to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for a random collection of
things depending on the whim of the author.  That makes for a messy
environment to work in, and it's messy enough already.  If we wanted
to remove the EXPORT_SYMBOL/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL distinction completely,
that'd be fine with me, too.  But as long as we keep it, I think it
should mean something more than the preference of the author.

I know I did already ack this, and I even said I would merge it, but a
month of thinking about this hasn't made me more comfortable with it,
so I've changed my mind.  I said before that I wouldn't try to stop
you if you want to merge it some other way, but I don't want to ack
it, and I don't want to merge it via my tree.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web