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/
