On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: >>> I don't see any reason to limit it to GPL drivers. Not only that, but >>> then we'll have this: >> >> I do > > Can you elaborate on that, or are you just going to pull rank on me? > >> >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(ppc_proc_freq); >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ppc_tb_freq); >>> >>> That just looks dumb. >> >> Right, so send a patch to fix the first one too :-)
I don't think either of these should be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Why shouldn't a binary module be allowed to know these frequencies? My view is why preclude anyone from using this how they want. If they want to live in the gray area so be it. Who am I to say they shouldn't have that choice. > Then why doesn't someone post a patch to change all EXPORT_SYMBOL to > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL? And why do we consider EXPORT_SYMBOL to be "broken"? > > I'm not trying to be a troll, but I see a lot of inconsistency with respect > to EXPORT_SYMBOL and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I'm in agreement with the lack of clarity, it seems to be developer whim. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
